Legal Opinion

Unzelman v. City of Sioux Falls

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1937No. File No. 8018PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRudolph, P. J.

Respondent, Unzelman, asserted a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Laws against the City of Sioux Falls. The appellant, Waggoner, acted as Unzelman’s attorney in connection with this claim against the city and was successful in establishing the claim at a hearing before the Industrial Commissioner. Mr. Waggoner then claimed an attorney fee lien against the award of the Industrial Commissioner for 50 per cent, of the amount of the award. The amount of the fee was objected to and an application was made to the Industrial Commissioner to approve and allow the fee under the provisions of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Downs v. Bruce Independent School District No. 49South Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
  2. National Bank of Commerce v. JurySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Overton v. City of Sioux FallsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Graff v. BurnsideSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Medley v. Salvation Army Rapid City CorpsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  2. U. S. Collins v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1957
  3. In re PUC Docket HP 14-0001South Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
  4. In the Matter of Keystone Xl Pipeline, in Re: Cheyenne River Sioux tribe/yankton Sioux tribe/dakota Rural ActionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API