§Why CasetextPricing

In re: Thelen LLP.

Brief

8 Cited authorities

  1. Kaiser Aetna v. United States

    444 U.S. 164 (1979)   Cited 634 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the `right to exclude,' so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation"

  2. Geron ex rel. Estate of Thelen LLP v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (In re Thelen LLP)

    736 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 256 times
    Holding that partnership's status as a registered California entity did not alter conclusion that New York law should apply to fraudulent transfer claims

  3. In re Taylor

    599 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 95 times
    Affirming decision concerning a preference action brought in the course of a chapter 7 liquidation

  4. Cohen v. Lord, Day Lord

    75 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 118 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lawyer possesses a private right of action with which he can seek to invalidate a clause that hampers his ability to practice law

  5. Demov, Morris, Levine Shein v. Glantz

    53 N.Y.2d 553 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 94 times
    Recognizing “unique relationship” between attorney and client as “one of the most sensitive and confidential relationships in our society”

  6. Shandell v. Katz

    217 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 29 times
    In Shandell, for example, the plaintiff had voluntarily withdrawn from a law partnership, taking with him 14 contingent fee cases, and eventually recovering $1.6 million.

  7. Heller Ehrman LLP v. Jones Day (In re Heller Ehrman LLP)

    Bankruptcy Case No. 08-32514DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014)   Cited 6 times

    Bankruptcy Case No. 08-32514DM Adversary Proceeding No. 10-3221DM 01-28-2014 In re HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Debtor. HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Plaintiff, v. JONES DAY, Defendant. DENNIS MONTALI __________ U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Chapter 11 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VALUE OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS TO BE RECOVERED I. INTRODUCTION On November 6, 2013, the court heard oral argument on four motions filed by Heller Ehrman LLP ("Heller"), by and through Michael

  8. Lemmer v. Charney

    195 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. B222603. May 5, 2011. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. EC049369, Laura A. Matz, Judge. Don S. Lemmer, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Turner, Reynolds, Greco O'Hara, Frederick E. Turner and Keith Van Dyke for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION GRIMES, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend in an action by an attorney against a former client and his wife