Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Geline

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1970No. 170PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

Is the attorney for the plaintiff in a personal injury action entitled to a fee from subrogated insurers paid out of a settlement of the case?

Parties in interest. Involved in the determination of the issue presented are: (1) The plaintiffs, here the Conovers, acting for themselves and their children; (2) their attorney, here Max E. Geline, practicing attorney in Milwaukee county; and (3) the subrogated insurers, here State Farm and Associated Hospital Service.

Retainer agreement. To collect their claim for their damages the plaintiffs retained the attorney agreeing to pay “one-third (Yn) of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United Services Automobile Association v. HillsNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Krause v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. ElkinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1970
  4. Associated Hospital Service, Inc. v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Commercial Union Insurance v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Travelers Insurance Co. v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Barreca v. CobbSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1996
  4. Baier v. State Farm InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  5. Pena v. ThoringtonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979

31 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