Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 43 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Zakk v. Diesel.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Zakk v. Diesel Anchor | green | “although the statute of limitations on a cause of action for quantum meruit for personal services usually begins to run when those services or the relationship between the parties terminate, . . . where services are provided with the understanding that payment for those services…” | 7 |
| 2 | Belcher v. Kirkwood | green | “the statute of limitations applicable to oral contracts bound the trial court in its ruling on the defense of laches.” | 6 |
| 3 | Morris Law Office, P.C. v. Tatum | green | “an award of quantum meruit fees should be made independent of any benefit to the client and according to the objective and reasonable value of the prior attorney's services up to the point of termination essentially based on a lodestar calculus.” | 6 |
| 4 | Johnstone v. E & J Manufacturing Co. | green | “under those conditions, the statute of limitations begins to run from the time the last service is rendered.” | 6 |
| 5 | County of Campbell v. Howard | green | “the result secured by the services of the attorney . . . ; but merely as bearing upon the consideration of the efficiency with which they were rendered, and, in that way, upon their value on a quantum meruit, not from the standpoint of their value to the client.” | 6 |
| 6 | Appleton v. Appleton | green | “the quantum meruit recovery cannot be more than the contingent fee” | 6 |
| 7 | United States v. Hudson | green | “charging lien for his services is, to the extent of such services, regarded as an equitable assignee of the judgment or funds produced by his efforts.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.