Legal Opinion

Throm v. Koepke Sand & Gravel Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1952PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Plaintiff contends that the testimony offered by him that his land was not cleaned up and restored to farming condition, being uncontradicted and undisputed, could not be disregarded by the jury, and that, therefore, there was no *481evidence to support the finding. He offered proof that the land had been under cultivation for the production of alfalfa hay prior to defendant’s operation; that it was left covered in part with rock and gravel; that considerable of the top soil had been removed leaving rocks sticking out of the ground; that a pile of rock of considerable size which covered some of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Milwaukee Masons & Builders' Ass'n v. NiezerowskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Dresser v. LemmaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Lehner v. KelleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Toepfer v. SteerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Boller v. CofrancesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Grinley v. Town of Eau GalleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Baierl v. HinshawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Withers v. TuckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Throm v. Koepke Sand & Gravel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

1 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