Legal Opinion

Illinois Central Railroad v. Blaha

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1958PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.

Defendant contends (1) that the judgment in the Cunningham case is not binding on it for the reason that it was not given proper and timely notice or a reasonable opportunity to defend in that action; (2) that defendant’s dock was not an “obstruction” within the meaning of the sidetrack agreement; (3) that plaintiff is estopped because it moved the tracks closer to the dock after the agreement was entered into; (4) that defendant should have had the opportunity to relitigate the causal negligence of Cunningham ; and (5) that any recovery by the plaintiff should be limited to 50 per cent under…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Robbins v. Chicago CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Zdunek v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. American Surety Co. v. BallmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
  5. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. HenryMississippi Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Deminsky v. Arlington Plastics MacHineryWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Hill v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Gabe's Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
  5. New York Central Railroad Co. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1960

15 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