Adkins v. Staker
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
While the plaintiff denied entering into the contingent contract set forth in the answer, in the disposition of this case we shall assume that he did so as found by the trial court. The precise legal question to be determined is whether, under our Workmen’s Compensation Law, such contracts are valid. “In England, in accordance with the common law rule, agreements between attorney and client for a fee contingent on the success of the litigation are held invalid on the ground of champerty.” 2 Ruling Case Law, 1039, Section 121. In this country, the weight of au thority recognizes the validity…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. NelsonOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Roberts v. MontgomeryOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- Harrington v. Department of Labor & IndustryMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Sarja v. Pittsburgh Steel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Gritta's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- In Re Suburban Motor Freight, Inc., Debtor. Stephen K. Yoder, Trustee v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
- Mitchell v. MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Britt v. BrittCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- McCamey v. PayerOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- Adams v. FleckOhio Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.