Legal Opinion

Schneck v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1964PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The principal issues are:

1. Is there sufficient credible evidence to sustain the verdict ?

2. Was argument to the jury by plaintiffs’ counsel so improper as to require a new trial ?

Sufficiency of the Evidence.

The factual situation as it appears in the record before us is essentially the same as reported in the first appeal. Briefly stated, the facts are: The plaintiff, Patricia Brandt, is the minor daughter of Frank Brandt. In July of 1959, Patricia, then sixteen years old, received a temporary driving permit. In August of 1959, she received a driver’s license. During the time she had only the…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Krebsbach v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Roeske v. SchmittWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. RunquistWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Hanley v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Lehner v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kink v. CombsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Chevron Chemical Co. v. Deloitte & ToucheWisconsin Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Foote v. Douglas CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Andritsch v. HenschelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Howard v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. L. INS. CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975

3 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