COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT 
                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 
                             NO. 70071
ROBERT BELOVICH               :    
                              :    ACCELERATED DOCKET
        Plaintiff-appellee    :
                              :      JOURNAL ENTRY
     -vs-                     :           AND
                              :         OPINION
MEHDI MAGHAFI, M.D.           :
                              :        PER CURIAM 
        Defendant-appellant   :
                              :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
  OF DECISION:                     JUNE 6, 1996        
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from
                                   Parma Municipal Court
                                   Case No. 94-CVF-1485
JUDGMENT:                          Affirmed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                
APPEARANCES:
For plaintiff-appellee:       For defendant-appellant:
ROBERT BELOVICH, JR., ESQ.    CLAUDIA R. EKLUND, ESQ.
5638 Ridge Road               SINDELL, LOWE & GUIDUBALDI
Parma, Ohio  44129            610 Skylight Office Tower
                              1660 West Second Street
                              Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1454
                               - 2 -
PER CURIAM: 
     After a brief  trial to the  bench, the Parma Municipal  Court
issued a  judgment in  favor of  appellees on  their complaint  for
attorney fees totaling  $4,525.00, plus 10% interest  from the date
of judgment.  Appellant filed a  timely notice of appeal, asserting
one assignment of error.
                                 I
     THE TRIAL COURT  ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES WHERE NO
     EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED  AS TO THE REASONABLE  VALUE OF THE
     SERVICES RENDERED.
     Appellant  argues that insufficient  evidence was presented at
the trial to support the reasonableness  of the attorney fee award.
Appellant's argument is without merit.
     The Ohio Supreme Court has recently held that:
          A  trial   court  called   upon  to   determine  the
     reasonable   value   of   a   discharged   contingent-fee
     attorney's services in quantum meruit should consider the
     totality  of the circumstances involved in the situation.
     The number  of hours worked  by the  attorney before  the
     discharge   is  only   one  factor   to   be  considered.
     Additional relevant considerations  include the  recovery
     sought, the skill demanded, the results obtained, and the
     attorney-client agreement itself.
Reid, Johnson,  Downes, Andrachik & Webster v. Lansberry (1994), 68
Ohio St.3d 570,  at paragraph three of  the syllabus.   The Supreme
Court held as well that the trial court resolves this matter within
the  exercise of  its  discretion because  the  factors require  an
equitable  determination.    Reid,  Johnson,  Downes,  Andrachik  &
Webster v. Lansberry, supra, at 577.  We do not find that the trial
                               - 3 -
court  abused its  discretion  in  holding  that  $4,500.00  was  a
reasonable amount due appellees under the quantum meruit theory.
     Evidence was presented at trial of not only the hours spent by
the attorneys,  but also of the  nature of the work  performed, the
attorneys' expertise  as pilots  in a  case involving  aeronautical
instrument malfunction, and  the rates  customarily charged by  the
attorneys  on an  hourly  basis.   The trial  court  had before  it
sufficient evidence to  review the issue  of reasonableness of  the
fees  sought.    Judgments supported  by  some  competent, credible
evidence going to all  the essential elements of the case  will not
be  disturbed  on appeal.  C.E.  Morris  Co. v.  Foley  Constr. Co.
(1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279.
     Appellant's assignment of error is overruled.
                    CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
     THE TRIAL COURT  ERRED IN  DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION  TO
     TAX COSTS.
     Appellee  argues that  the trial  court  erred in  denying his
motion  for  the  recovery  of   costs  as  the  prevailing  party.
Appellant's assignment  of error is not properly  before this Court
for review because a notice of cross appeal was never filed in this
case.  App.R. 4(C)(1).
     The municipal court's  determination of  judgment in favor  of
appellees is affirmed.
                               - 4 -
     It is ordered that appellees  recover of appellant their costs
herein taxed. 
     The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
     It is ordered  that a special mandate issue out  of this Court
directing the  Parma Municipal  Court to  carry this judgment  into
execution.  
     A certified  copy of this  entry shall constitute  the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                              _________________________________
                              PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, JUDGE
                              _________________________________
                              ANN DYKE, JUDGE
                              _________________________________
                              JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE
N.B. This  entry is  made pursuant  to the  third sentence  of Rule
22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.   This is an announcement
of decision (see Rule 26).  Ten (10) days from the date hereof this
document will be stamped to  indicate journalization, at which time
.