Legal Opinion

Foreman v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The defendant contends with considerable vigor that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and supports its contention by refer*261ence to the record. An examination of the record discloses a clear conflict in the evidence and we are unable to discover any physical facts or undisputed situation which makes the testimony offered and received on behalf of the plaintiff incredible. No useful purpose would be served by setting out in detail the facts which support each theory. , If there is a conflict, the determination of where the truth lay was clearly a matter for the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Birdsall v. FraenzelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  2. McNamara v. McNamaraWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Olsen v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Estate of JavornikWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Zernia v. Capitol Court Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Spote v. AliotaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Birnamwood Oil Co. v. Arrowhead Asso.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Zernia v. Capitol Court Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API