Legal Opinion

Olk v. Marquardt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1931PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFaiechild, J.

The appellant urges the negligence of the plaintiff as a basis for his recovery on his counterclaim and as a defense against respondent’s complaint, but in our view of the case the jury was warranted in reaching the conclusion it did.

One approaching a crossing of a highway, proceeding with ordinary care to a point where he can see to his left a sufficient distance to insure him that any one coming from beyond, traveling at a lawful rate of speed, will not interfere with his crossing the highway, may rightfully proceed on the assumption that his right of way will be respected. If by reason of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bentson v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Birchard v. BoothWisconsin Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Dahinden v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Hamus v. WeberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Collins v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Ando v.WoodberryNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
  2. Kincannon v. National Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Jesco, Inc. v. ShannonMississippi Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Dimmick v. FollisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1953
  5. Heinecke v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

11 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