Source: https://www.icovelegal.com/court-acknowledgements/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:12:47+00:00

Document:
Court Acknowledgements | Icove Legal Group, Ltd.
Lexington v. Cheek & Zeehanderlar, LLP, 568 F.Supp.2d 870, 882 (S.D. Ohio 2008) (FDCPA and CSPA class action) (“Icove shows that he has substantial experience litigating consumer class actions in both state and federal court. . . .The Court further observes that to date Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work in this case has been excellent.”).
Lee v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 252 F.Supp.2d 387, 393 (S.D.Ohio 2008) (Chief Judge Beckwith stated Icove is “highly experienced in the field of consumer law.”).
Ferrari v. Howard, 2002 WL 1500414 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2002), 2005 WL 1939352 at *6 (Ohio Muni. 2005) (CSPA and RISA) (“A specialist in Consumer Sales Practices cases, especially an attorney with a background in Legal Aid service, must consider the benefit to the public resulting from professional services in this consumer area. Mr. Icove did not exhibit a purpose to enrich himself, but rather to represent Mrs. Howard conscientiously within the spirit of CSPA.” “Mr. Icove patiently proceeded in a professional manner step by step through the thicket of obstacles preventing him from resolving the case in a shorter time frame.” “To his credit, Mr. Icove took a “garden variety” consumer sales case and merely charged the rate of a generalist without regard to this factor in setting professional fees.”).
Cleveland v. Ibrahim, 121 Fed.Appx. 88, 2005 WL 180976 (6th Cir.2005), 2005 WL 1541042, 2003 WL 24010953, 2003 WL 24010954 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (Racial discrimination in sale of house) (“Throughout Icove’s career one of his specialties has been public interest and civil rights law.”).
Kelly v. Montgomery, 2007 WL 4562913, 69 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1126(N.D. Ohio 2007) (Icove is “competent, experienced, and well-qualified to handle this type of litigation.”).
Pyles v. Johnson, 143 Ohio App.2d 720, 735 (Ohio App. 4th Dist. 2000) (Consumer class action under Ohio CSPA, Retail Installment Sales Act, and fraud) (“The appellants have not disputed that the Appellee’s counsel is competent and experienced in litigating class actions.”).
Sheffel v. Sulikowski, 62 Ohio St.2d 128 (1980) (Habeas corpus/mental illness) (The Ohio Supreme Court stated: “the facts elicited during the hospital’s doctor’s testimony, particularly on cross-examination, were not supportive of his conclusions.”).
Caldwelll v. Carroll Country Welfare Department, 1979 WL 207504, petition for writ of certiorari denied, 101 S.Ct. 1694 (1981) (Due process claim for not holding adjudicatory hearing for two years after children were taken from parents) (The Ohio Court of Appeals stated: “The Appellant very competently addressed these issues in various briefs.”).
Raper v. Audubon Park Ltd., Case No. 80-1-400 (S.D. Ohio 1980) (Federal housing class action) (“[T]he Legal Aid attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in this action have been practicing law only a few years, but the Court observed that the quality of their work was in the highest tradition of that of the private Attorney Generals contemplated by Congress when it adopted the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. The thorough and dedicated efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel were demonstrated by the high caliber of the pleadings they filed and the research which they supplied the Court. They have represented their clients with impressive perseverance and skill.”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.