From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simler v. Conner

U.S.
Feb 18, 1963
372 U.S. 221 (1963)

Summary

holding declaratory judgment action by client wherein client challenged the enforceability of a contingent fee retainer agreement "was in its basic character a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract, a traditionally `legal' action"

Summary of this case from Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co.

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 59.

Argued January 9-10, 1963. Decided February 18, 1963.

1. In a diversity of citizenship action in a Federal District Court, federal law governs in determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial. P. 222.

2. Although the action in this case was in form a declaratory judgment action, it was in basic character a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee contract; it was "legal," not "equitable," in character, and the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial. P. 223.

295 F.2d 534, reversed.

John B. Ogden argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

Peyton Ford argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Leslie L. Conner, respondent, pro se.


This Court granted certiorari, 368 U.S. 966, to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, holding that in a diversity action in the Federal District Court, state law, here that of Oklahoma, governs in determining whether an action is "legal" or "equitable" for the purpose of deciding whether a claimant has a right to a jury trial. Applying Oklahoma law, the Court of Appeals decided that a jury trial, although asked for by petitioner, was not here appropriate. 295 F.2d 534.

In this Court respondent frankly concedes that, contrary to the Court of Appeals holding, federal law governs in determining the right to a jury trial in the federal courts. Respondent seeks to sustain the result reached by the Court of Appeals, however, on the twin grounds that, applying federal law, no jury was required in this case because (1) the District Court properly granted summary judgment for respondent under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) the present action is "equitable" and not "legal" in character.

We agree with respondent that the right to a jury trial in the federal courts is to be determined as a matter of federal law in diversity as well as other actions. The federal policy favoring jury trials is of historic and continuing strength. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446-449; Scott v. Neely, 140 U.S. 106; Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 537-539; Beacon Theatres, Inc., v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500; Dairy Queen, Inc., v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469. Only through a holding that the jury-trial right is to be determined according to federal law can the uniformity in its exercise which is demanded by the Seventh Amendment be achieved. In diversity cases, of course, the substantive dimension of the claim asserted finds its source in state law, Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64; see Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U.S. 208; Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, but the characterization of that state-created claim as legal or equitable for purposes of whether a right to jury trial is indicated must be made by recourse to federal law.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." U.S. Const., Amend. VII.

However, we do not agree with respondent that in this case a summary judgment was warranted or that this is an "equitable" action not requiring a jury trial.

In two appeals in this case, the Court of Appeals has ruled that in view of conflicting facts presented by affidavits and depositions to the District Court, summary judgment was not warranted. We accept and do not disturb the ruling of the Court of Appeals on this phase of the case since it has ample support in the record.

On the question whether, as a matter of federal law, the instant action is legal or equitable, we conclude that it is "legal" in character. The record discloses that the controversy between petitioner and respondent in substance involves the amount of fees petitioner, a client, is obligated to pay respondent, his lawyer. Petitioner admits his obligation to pay a "reasonable" fee under a contingent fee retainer contract stipulating that reasonableness may be set in a court trial. Respondent relies on a subsequent contract specifying 50% of the recovery, under certain circumstances, as the amount of the fee. Petitioner counters that the latter contract is the product of fraud and overreaching by the lawyer.

The case was in its basic character a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract, a traditionally "legal" action. See Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 447; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U.S. 548. The fact that the action is in form a declaratory judgment case should not obscure the essentially legal nature of the action. The questions involved are traditional common-law issues which can be and should have been submitted to a jury under appropriate instructions as petitioner requested.

Accordingly, the courts below erred in denying petitioner the jury trial guaranteed him by the Seventh Amendment and the judgment is reversed.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Simler v. Conner

U.S.
Feb 18, 1963
372 U.S. 221 (1963)

holding declaratory judgment action by client wherein client challenged the enforceability of a contingent fee retainer agreement "was in its basic character a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract, a traditionally `legal' action"

Summary of this case from Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co.

holding suit to recover fees client owed lawyer under contingent fee contract was a legal action

Summary of this case from Rezac Livestock Comm'n Co. v. Pinnacle Bank

holding suit to recover fees client owed lawyer under contingent fee contract was a legal action

Summary of this case from Skepnek v. Roper & Twardowsky, LLC

holding that the "characterization of that state-created claim as legal or equitable for purposes of whether a right to jury trial is indicated must be made by recourse to federal law."

Summary of this case from Amec Env't & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Spectrum Servs. Grp., Inc.

holding federal law governed whether an action was legal or equitable and thus whether there was a right to a jury trial

Summary of this case from Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. j2 Global, Inc.

holding federal law governs the right to a jury trial in diversity actions

Summary of this case from R&R Packaging, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Corp.

holding that state statute defining issue as an equitable one to be decided by the judge was inapplicable in a federal diversity action due to the federal right to a jury trial

Summary of this case from 3M Co. v. Boulter

holding that "[t]he fact that the action," a suit "to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client," was brought as "a declaratory judgment case should not obscure [its] essentially legal nature"

Summary of this case from Sedghi v. Patchlink Corp.

holding that "[t]he fact that the action," a suit "to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client," was brought as "a declaratory judgment case should not obscure [its] essentially legal nature"

Summary of this case from Sedghi v. Patchlink Corp.

holding federal law governs the right to a jury trial in diversity actions

Summary of this case from Westgate GV Atwoods, LLC v. Dickson

holding that a suit to enforce contract rights was a legal action even though it was brought as a declaratory judgment action

Summary of this case from In re OCA, Inc.

holding that a claim for attorney fees in attorney-client lawsuit is a matter for the jury

Summary of this case from United Prairie Bank–Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., LLC

finding that a declaratory judgment action "was in its basic character a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract, a traditionally 'legal' action"

Summary of this case from Allcity Family Healthcare Ctr., Inc. v. Boss Surgical Grp., LLC

finding that "[o]nly through a holding that the jury trial right is to be determined according to federal law can the uniformity in its exercise which is demanded by the Seventh Amendment be achieved."

Summary of this case from Fleeger v. Wachovia Bank

finding that the right to a jury trial in federal court is usually governed by federal law

Summary of this case from Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Highland P'ship, Inc.

In Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract [is] a traditionally legal action."

Summary of this case from McGuire v. Russell Miller, Inc.

providing that the jury trial right is controlled by federal law to insure uniformity in exercise required by the seventh amendment

Summary of this case from Cont'l Bank v. Heag Pain Mgmt. Ctr.

providing that the jury trial right is controlled by federal law to insure uniformity in exercise required by the seventh amendment

Summary of this case from AVT N.J., L.P. v. Cubitac Corp.

stating that federal law controls to insure uniformity in the exercise of the Seventh Amendment

Summary of this case from Fluor Enters., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Sys. Ams., Inc.

explaining that federal law applies to this inquiry in order to ensure uniformity as demanded by the Seventh Amendment

Summary of this case from Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc.

stating federal law controls to insure uniformity in exercise of Seventh Amendment

Summary of this case from Patel v. Quick-Way Retail Assocs. II, Ltd.

In Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 222 (1963) (per curiam), the United States Supreme Court held that "the right to a jury trial in the federal courts is to be determined as a matter of federal law in diversity as well as other actions."

Summary of this case from Estate of Faull v. McAfee

In Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221 (1963), the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of determining whether a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial is available for a particular state law cause of action in a diversity suit, federal law applies.

Summary of this case from Pallen Martial Arts, LLC v. Shir Martial Arts, LLC

explaining that the jury trial right is governed by federal law in diversity actions in order to satisfy the requirements of the Seventh Amendment

Summary of this case from American Casualty Company of Reading v. Kemper

In Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963), the Supreme Court held that "a suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract [is] a traditionally legal action."

Summary of this case from Building Erection Serv., Inc. v. JLG Industries, Inc.
Case details for

Simler v. Conner

Case Details

Full title:SIMLER v . CONNER

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 18, 1963

Citations

372 U.S. 221 (1963)
83 S. Ct. 609

Citing Cases

Ginberg v. Tauber

Therefore, we see no basis for limiting the holding in Kudon to attorney fee determinations that are closely…

In re Light Cigarettes Marketing Sales Practices

PM contends that federal, not state law governs because whether a claimant may bring an unjust enrichment…