Legal Opinion

Sarja v. Pittsburgh Steel Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 12, 1923No. 23,111PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Plaintiff, through appellants his attorneys, instituted a proceeding in the district court for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the Pittsburgh Steel Ore Company, his employer.’ Issue was joined, but before trial a settlement was effected, pursuant to which judgment for $1,800 against the employer was entered. This was paid, and appellants, claiming that plaintiff, the respondent, had agreed to pay them one-half of the recovery for their services, retained $900. Thereafter the court, on plaintiff’s petition and a hearing, made an order requiring the appellants to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  2. Klampe v. KlampeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  3. May v. Charles Hoertz & SonMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Landro v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  5. State v. CareySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. MacK v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  2. Buckler v. HiltIndiana Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. DappermanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  4. In Re MauryMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Adkins v. StakerOhio Supreme Court · 1935

8 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