Burmeister v. Damrow
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.
The facts established by undisputed evidence of record are as follows: The defendant, E. H. Damrow, is the father of the defendant, John E. Damrow. Both are chiropractors. The son was an employee of the father in a chiropractic clinic conducted at the residence of the father on Center avenue near the city of Janesville. In 1949 the father began the construction of a new office building upon property where his residence was located. The son had no financial interest in the property. Father and son did some work themselves on the new building. Contractors were engaged by the father to do work…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Potter v. City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Frei v. FreiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- John Hoffmann & Sons Co. v. ParksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
3Cited by7 opinions
- Caldwell v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Weber v. City of HurleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Berger v. Metropolitan Sewerage CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Becker v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Caldwell v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.