Legal Opinion

Rice v. Gruetzmacher

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1966PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

Because of the peculiar factual scenery, Maryland Casualty Company was called upon to perform in a chameleonic capacity; this is because it was both the workmen’s compensation carrier and also the liability insurer of Mr. Rice’s employer, Hennes Trucking Company.

Mr. Rice, the plaintiff, has objected to having the Maryland Casualty Company share in the proceeds which were derived from the settlement of Mr. Rice’s third-party action. His position is that it is inequitable for the workmen’s compensation carrier, Maryland Casualty Company, to share in the proceeds after it had thrown mountainous…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. WurzbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Odell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. LehmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Pagel v. KeesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Delaney v. CanningWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gabriel v. GabrielWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Eberle v. Joint School District No. 1Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Simanek v. Miehle-Goss-DexterCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  4. Ceria M. Travis Academy, Inc. v. EversCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2016
  5. Herlache v. Blackhawk Collision Repair, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API