Legal Opinion

Graff v. Tinkham

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1930PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

A new trial must be granted. Much of the evidence introduced related to conditions as they were long after the transactions complained of and after difficulties, over which the defendant could exercise no control, had visited themselves upon the enterprise. The plaintiffs were permitted to introduce testimony, over defendant’s objection, of conversations in West Virginia at which neither plaintiffs nor defendant were present, tending to show that *145representations similar to those charged against defendant had been made by Mr. Barrett to the witness Huber.

The plaintiff Charles W. Graff was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Standard Manufacturing Co. v. SlotWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Miranovitz v. GeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  3. J. H. Clark Co. v. RiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Swoboda v. RubinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Karls v. DrakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. P.H. Glatfelter Company v. Voith, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  2. Neas v. SiemensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Ma v. Community BankDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1980
  4. Jesse v. TinkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Sullivan v. BakerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935

2 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