Legal Opinion

Mead v. City of Richland Center

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 13, 1941PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The action was brought under sec. 81.15, Stats., to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by a defective sidewalk. Trial was had to a jury. The case was submitted upon a special verdict. The first question of the verdict inquired whether the sidewalk at the place of injury was “in an unsafe and defective condition.” This question was answered “No.” The court had instructed the jury that the other questions need not be answered if the first question were so answered. On this verdict judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The other questions were not answered.

Two errors are…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Burton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Hempton v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Brown v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  4. McBean v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Barlow v. FosterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. RodriquezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  2. United States v. Anthony C. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
  3. United States v. Darwin Clark BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  4. John Haugh v. Jones & Laughlin Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  5. State v. EcholsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1993

20 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