Legal Opinion

Lester v. Dawson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 2, 1997No. 24681PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TOAL, Justice:

In this attorneys’ fee dispute, Appellant Dawson (“Client”) argues he was entitled to a trial by jury. Because Dawson did not timely appeal the denial of his request for a jury trial, he is barred from bringing this appeal. However, we take this opportunity to clarify that an action by an attorney for recovery of sums owed under a fee agreement between the attorney and his client constitutes an action in law with the right to a trial by jury.

Factual/Procedural Background

Attorney Ken Lester (“Attorney”) represented Client in a domestic matter. Client paid Attorney a $5000…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Trist v. ChildSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Litman v. FINE, JACOBSON, SCHWARTZDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Pelfrey Ex Rel. Associated Railway Contractors, Inc. v. Bank of GreerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  4. Foggie v. CSX Transportation, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  5. Creed v. StokesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. First Union Nat. Bank of SC v. SodenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
  2. Verenes v. AlvanosSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  3. Webb v. CSX Transportation, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
  4. Flagstar Corp. v. Royal Surplus LinesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  5. Satcher v. SatcherCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API