Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McCann v. Todd, 14 So. 2d 469.

36 citing documents.

Ike Spears v. William W. Hall La. 2026
Roy Raspanti v. E. John Litchfield and Berrigan Litchfield, Schonekas, Mann, Traina and Thompson, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
Murray v. Harang 104 So. 3d 694 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
the court held that when one attorney engages another to assist in the representation of a client under a contingency fee contract, they share equally in the fee, and it is immaterial that one attorney may provide more labor or skill than the other.
Williams v. EARL K. LONG MEDICAL CENTER 40 So. 3d 412 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
Duer & Taylor v. Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin and Roberts, supra at 194-95, , (1943).
Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP 950 So. 2d 641 La. 2007
Whalen v. Murphy 943 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Gibson v. Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, L.L.P. 927 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
To support a finding that imputation of knowledge to the Gibsons, once the Mabrey firm was given notice of the Herman Firm’s recommendation is without merit, , (1943).
Barham & Arceneaux v. Kozak 874 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
A , (1943), to resolve an attorney fee division dispute where the attorneys had jointly undertaken to represent their client in a lawsuit.
Dukes v. Matheny 878 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
A joint venture theory was *520 , (1943), to resolve an attorney [4fee division dispute where the attorneys had jointly undertaken to represent their client in a lawsuit.
Hanks v. COLUMBIA WOMEN'S AND CHILD. HOSP. 865 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
(1943) [quoting 7 C.J.S.
Parry v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund 828 So. 2d 30 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
(1943).” 354 So.2d at 194-95 .
Brown v. Seimers 726 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
Krebs v. Mull 727 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Warner v. Carimi Law Firm 725 So. 2d 592 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Rice v. Cummings 716 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Robinson v. Thornton 705 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
(1943) [quoting 7 C.J.S.
Pitts v. Bailes 574 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Distinguished Lloyd v. Tritico 527 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
The equal share rule, , (1943) and currently followed, (La.App.
Defrancesch v. Hardin 510 So. 2d 42 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. McNamara 452 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
e principal difference between a partnership and a joint adventure ‘is that, while a co-partnership is ordinarily formed for the transaction of a general business of a particular kind, a joint adventure is usually, but not necessarily, limited to a single transaction, although the business of conducting it to a successful termination may continue for a number of years.’ ” , (1932); Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, Inc., supra.
CAJUN ELEC. POWER CO-OP., INC. v. McNamara 452 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
he principal difference between a partnership and a joint adventure `is that, while a co-partnership is ordinarily formed for the transaction of a general business of a particular kind, a joint adventure is usually, but not necessarily, limited to a single transaction, although the business of conducting it to a successful termination may continue for a number of years.'" , (1932); Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, Inc., supra.
Fontenot & Mitchell v. ROZAS, MANUEL, ETC. 425 So. 2d 259 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
After a thorough study of the files of the two firms and of the evidence adduced at the trial of the matter, , (1943) stood for the applicable principle of law in this case and apportioned the fee one-half for each firm.
Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 INDUSTRIES 355 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
The comparison between a joint venture and a , (1943), quoting from Daily States Publishing Co. v. Uhalt, 169 La.
Duer & Taylor v. BLANCHARD, WALKER, ETC. 354 So. 2d 192 La. 1978
Cookmeyer v. Cookmeyer 274 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
264 , ; , ; Daspit v. Sinclair Refining Co., 199 La.
Duncan v. Gill 227 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
298 (1935); , (1943); Young v. Reed (La.App.
Quinn Construction Co. v. Savoie 207 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
[4] See also Pittman and Matheny v. Davidge, La.App., (1966); , (1943); Couvillon v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, 218 La.
Pittman and Matheny v. Davidge 189 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Prentice v. Amax Petroleum Corp. 187 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
(1943); Emerson v. Shirley, 188 La.
B & R Construction Co. v. Duvigneaud 172 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Suckle v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 163 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
298 (1935); , (1943); Young v. Reed (La.App.
Villarrubia v. Roy 162 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
2d 507 ; , ; Daily States Pub.
Hayes v. Muller 158 So. 2d 191 La. 1963
(1943); Emerson v. Shirley, 188 La.
Fossier v. American Printing Co., Ltd. 130 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
The principal difference between a partnership and a , , which quoted from Daily States Pub.
Parker v. Davis 72 So. 2d 877 La. 1954
In any event, while we recognize that an action by one partner against another, whether engaged in a joint venture or formal partnership, , , can only be brought after the dissolution of the partnership with respect to transactions or assets of the partnership, and then for the limited purpose of a final settlement, or to recover a balance determined to be due, Dromgoole v. Gardner’s Widow & Heirs, 10 Mart., O.S., 433; Faurie v. Millaud
Kennedy v. Perry Timber Co. 52 So. 2d 847 La. 1951
48 C. J.S., Joint Adventures, § 1, p. 801; , .