Legal Opinion

Cranston v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 1944PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The trial court held that: “This court has no power to enlarge or shrink the amount which the Industrial Commission allows as attorneys’ fees in a compensation case.” And there was entered below the order sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.

The act of the Industrial Commission in failing to allow an attorney a higher fee in a given matter than ten per cent of the award is not reviewable by the courts in an action by the attorneys. A review under the compensation act is statutory and no such right exists unless the statute confers it. In re Farmers Exchange Bank (1943), 242 Wis. 574, 578,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Reetz v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Yeiser v. DysartSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Dysart v. YeiserNebraska Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Schneider Fuel & Supply Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. In re FischAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission v. Cedar Rapids Community School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
  2. Switkes v. John McShain, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1953
  3. Chevrolet Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Meyer v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Eisenberg v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

2 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