From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yeiser v. Dysart

U.S.
Apr 13, 1925
267 U.S. 540 (1925)

Summary

upholding similar state limitation

Summary of this case from Department of Labor v. Triplett

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.

No. 130.

Submitted October 24, 1924. Decided April 13, 1925.

A State may restrict the fees chargeable by attorneys at law in cases arising under the state workmen's compensation act without depriving them of property or liberty of contract in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 541. 192 N.W. 953, affirmed.

ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska ordering that the right of the plaintiff in error to practise as attorney at law be suspended unless he refund to a client a fee received and paid in violation of a provision of the state workmen's compensation law, providing that in cases thereunder the pay of the attorney should be fixed by the court and invalidating any contract for other and further pay.

John O. Yeiser, pro se.

No brief filed for defendants in error.


Upon a report of the respondents, a committee of members of the bar, the plaintiff in error was ordered to be suspended from the right to practise as attorney unless he should refund to a client a fee received by him of $620 and interest within a time fixed. The ground of the order was that by § 3031, Comp. St. 1922, only such sum could be demanded for services in bringing a suit under the workmen's compensation act of the State as the Court should allow, and that a contract for other and further pay was void. The Supreme Court of the State, while crediting the plaintiff in error with an honest belief that the statute had a narrower meaning, made the order complained of, and the case is brought here on a contention that the statute as construed unreasonably restricts the liberty of contract and contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the plaintiff in error of his liberty and property without due process of law.

The plaintiff in error recognizes that this Court is bound by the construction given to the State law by the State Court, yet wastes a good deal of argument in the effort to prove the construction wrong. When the constitutional question is reached, late cases are relied upon for the general proposition that unreasonable interference with freedom of contract cannot be sustained. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525; Charles Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 262 U.S. 522. But the question is specific, whether we can pronounce this law unreasonable, against the opinion of the legislature and Supreme Court of the State. The Court adverts to the fact that a large proportion of those who come under the statute have to look to it in case of injury and need to be protected against improvident contracts, in the interest not only of themselves and their families but of the public. A somewhat similar principle has been sanctioned by this Court. Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170. When we add the considerations that an attorney practises under a license from the State and that the subject matter is a right created by statute, it is obvious that the State may attach such conditions to the license in respect of such matters as it believes to be necessary in order to make it a public good. Of course a reasonable time from the issue of the mandate of this Court will be allowed for the plaintiff in error to comply with the judgment affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed.


Summaries of

Yeiser v. Dysart

U.S.
Apr 13, 1925
267 U.S. 540 (1925)

upholding similar state limitation

Summary of this case from Department of Labor v. Triplett

In Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540, 45 S.Ct. 399, 69 L.Ed.2d 775 (1925), the United States Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court that a similar statute was a proper exercise of the police power of the state and was not repugnant to the provisions of the federal constitution guaranteeing rights in property, due process of law, and equal protection of the law.

Summary of this case from Samaha v. State

In Yeiser v. Dysart (Neb. 1925), 267 U.S. 540, 69 L.Ed. 775, 45 S.Ct. 399, the Court held that a state may restrict the fees chargeable by attorneys at law in cases arising under the state workmen's compensation act without depriving them of property or liberty of contract in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary of this case from Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm. v. Wilks

In Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540, 541 (1925) the United States Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court, holding that a similar statute regulating attorneys fees was a proper exercise of the police powers of the state and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See also Crosby v. State Workers Compensation Board, 57 N.Y.2d 305, 456 N.Y.S. 680, 442 N.E.2d 1191 (1982); Samaha v. State, 389 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1980); Buckler v Hilt, 209 Ind. 541, 200 N.E. 219 (1936).

Summary of this case from Hudock v. Industrial Commission

In Yeiser v Dysart (267 US 540 [1925]), the Supreme Court, in upholding a statutory limitation on the attorney's fee chargeable in a Workmen's Compensation Act case, observed that the attorney in that case was ordered to be suspended from the right to practice unless he should make the refund to the client of the excess fee which had been directed in that case.

Summary of this case from Doe v. Roe

In Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540 (1925), the Supreme Court, in upholding a statutory limitation on the attorney's fee chargeable in a Workman's Compensation Act case, observed that the attorney in that case was ordered to be suspended from the right to practice unless he should make the refund to the client of the excess fee which had been directed in that case.

Summary of this case from Doe v. Roe
Case details for

Yeiser v. Dysart

Case Details

Full title:YEISER v . DYSART, ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 13, 1925

Citations

267 U.S. 540 (1925)
45 S. Ct. 399

Citing Cases

Sokoll v. Humphrey, Lutz and Smith

The fee so set is not to exceed 15% of the compensation awarded to the claimant. The fee-limitation provision…

Saleeby v. State Bar

(13) It has long been held that limitations may be placed on the amount of fees to which an attorney is…