DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite O'ROURKE v. Cairns, 683 So. 2d 697.

35 citing documents.

  • Louise Kaltenbaugh, ph.D. and Katherine Robinson, ph.D. v. Board of Supervisors, Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
  • Roy M. Bowes D/B/A Roy M. Bowes and Associates Versus Michael H. McIntire La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
  • Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, Llc v. Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation La. 2022
  • Nathan Lewis v. Robert C. Jenkins La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
  • James Davis v. Zurich American Insurance Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
    11/25/96), the supreme court addressed the fee to be an awarded an attorney who was discharged for cause.
  • Duhe v. DCR Indus. Servs., Inc. 267 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Law Office of John D. Sileo, LLC v. Kruse 239 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    11/25/96), , which provides guidance to lower courts and litigants in cases of attorneys discharged with cause in the contingency fee context.
  • Gillio v. Hanover American Insurance Co. 212 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    If an attorney is discharged for cause, “the court should consider the nature and gravity of the cause which contributed to the dismissal and reduce by a percentage amount the portion discharged counsel otherwise would receive after the Saucier allocation.” O’ (La.
  • Galloway Jefcoat, LLP v. D. Patrick (Rick") Keating " La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 2/9/11), this court conducted a de novo review to address an argument made by the appellant that the trial court failed to properly use the quantum meruit approach as directed by the supreme court on rehearing in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., and by the supreme court in O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), to properly divide fees between successive attorneys representing a client.
  • Galloway Jefcoat, LLP v. Keating 138 So. 3d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    3 Cir. 2/9/11) , , this court conducted a de novo re *792 view to address an argument made by the appellant that the trial court failed to properly use the quantum meruit approach as directed by the supreme court on rehearing in Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., and by the supreme court in O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , to properly divide fees between successive attorneys representing a client.
  • Brown v. ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Co. 135 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    *1194 See Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., (on rehearing); see also O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054, p. 4 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Skannal v. Jones Odom Davis & Politz, L.L.P. 124 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Const, art. V, § 5(B); O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96)
  • Randy N. Tran v. Charles E. Williams, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Tran v. Williams 56 So. 3d 1224 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Tommie Mack Granger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    11/25/96), [LSBA v.] Edwins, 540 So.2d [294 (La.1989)] at 299.
  • Gold v. Granger 947 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    11/25/96), ; [LSBA v.] Edwins, 540 So.2d [294 (La.1989)] at 299.
  • LeBlanc v. State Farm Ins. Co. 930 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    See O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , where the supreme court outlined the procedure for determining the fee an attorney discharged for cause is entitled to receive.
  • Julaine C. Leblanc v. State Farm Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    11/25/96), where the supreme court outlined the procedure for determining the fee an attorney discharged for cause is entitled to receive.
  • Culpepper & Carroll, PLLC v. Cole 929 So. 2d 1224 La. 2006
    11/25/96), ; Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prods., Inc., (La.
  • Cox v. Boggs 899 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    (on rehearing); O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Jarrell v. Miller 882 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Barham & Arceneaux v. Kozak 874 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See, e.g., Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Prod., Inc., O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Patton v. Lemoine 847 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Citing Saucier v. Hayes Dairy Products, Inc., and O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , we held that since the maximum contingency fee contract signed with any of the attorneys was for 40 percent, the attorney fee award could not exceed 40 percent.
  • Hebert v. Calahan 839 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054, p. 4, (La.11/25/96), .
  • Bacon v. TRANSPORT SERVICE CO. 836 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Town of Mamou v. Fontenot 816 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054, p. 4, (La.11/25/96), .
  • Francis v. Hotard 798 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    Calculation of any fee due under the contingency fee contract should reference the guidelines and concerns expressed in Saucier (attorney discharge without cause), and O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), (discharge with cause).
  • Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 788 So. 2d 1140 La. 2001
    See O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), ; Edwins, 540 So.2d at 299.
  • Patton v. Lemoine 776 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    This holding was confirmed in O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054, p. 11 (La.11/25/96); , where the supreme court held that the Saucier rule also applied to cases of discharge with cause, stating "[t]his rule serves to confine client exposure to no more than one contingency fee in both with and without cause situations."
  • Classic Imports, Inc. v. Singleton 765 So. 2d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    5 Cir. 11/28/95) , , unit granted, 95-3054 (La.3/14/96), , affirmed as amended, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , where the our neighbor Circuit court held in a case involving the competing claims of two law firms who had represented plaintiff in her malpractice suit.
  • Buras v. Ace Dynasty 731 So. 2d 1010 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    O’Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 p. 9 (La.11/25/96); .
  • Warner v. Carimi Law Firm 725 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
    O'Rourke v. Cairns 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), .
  • Osborne v. Vulcan Foundry, Inc. 699 So. 2d 492 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    In O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court applied it's holding in Saucier to cases involving an attorney who has been discharged for cause.
  • Keaty v. Raspanti 695 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    First, Keaty urges that the law of the case doctrine precludes reconsideration of Raspanti's motion, and second, that material issues of fact regarding interpretation of *1087 the compromise, the lack of supporting proof by Raspanti and the recent case of O'Rourke v. Cairns, 95-3054 (La.11/25/96), , demands a remand for trial on the merits.
  • Ferguson v. West Jefferson Levee District Board of Commissioners 688 So. 2d 486 La. 1997