Schneck v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Krebsbach v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Roeske v. SchmittWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. RunquistWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Hanley v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Lehner v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Kink v. CombsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Chevron Chemical Co. v. Deloitte & ToucheWisconsin Supreme Court · 1993
- Foote v. Douglas CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Andritsch v. HenschelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Howard v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. L. INS. CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.