Oral Arguments are happening now.View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

Linscott v. Shasteen

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Tuesday, March 4, 2014

S-13-0597,  Martin V. Linscott, individually and on behalf of Shasteen, Linscott, & Brock, P.C. (Appellants) v. Rolf E. Shasteen and Tony J. Brock (Appellees)

Lancaster County, Judge James T. Gleason

Attorneys:  V. Gene Summerlin and Marnie A. Jensen, Husch Blackwell, L.L.P. (Appellants) — Victor E. Covalt, III, and Adam R. Little, Ballew Covalt Hazen P.C., L.L.O. (Appellees)

Civil: action for accounting filed by shareholder of professional corporation, breach of contract

Proceedings Below: The district court found that Linscott, Brock, and Shasteen had not entered into an enforceable contract regarding the distribution of attorney’s fees following Linscott’s departure from the law practice of Shasteen, Linscott, & Brock, P.C. 

Issues: Appellants assign that the district court erred by (1) concluding that the agreement to divide attorney’s fees was unenforceable due to the statute of frauds, (2) concluding that the unfinished business rule was not applicable to Linscott’s request for an accounting, (3) concluding that Linscott was not entitled to an accounting from appellees, (4) failing to award damages to Linscott based on the accounting, (5) reversing its liability judgment following the damages trial, (6) reversing its receipt into evidence of Linscott’s exhibits 88 through 92, and (7) failing to award prejudgment interest to Linscott.

 

This page was last modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2014