Cranston v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Reetz v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Yeiser v. DysartSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Dysart v. YeiserNebraska Supreme Court · 1923
- Schneider Fuel & Supply Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- 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
- Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission v. Cedar Rapids Community School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
- Switkes v. John McShain, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1953
- Chevrolet Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Meyer v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Eisenberg v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.