Legal Opinion

Philbrook v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

The first contention to which our attention is directed is that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. This requires a consideration of the facts in some detail. At the time of the occurrences hereafter related, defendant was superintendent of the Douglas county work farm. He had held this position for more than twenty-five years. As superintendent it was his duty to supervise the farm and to perform duties analogous to those of a warden with respect to prisoners committed to the institution. On June 25, 1933, Andrew Morman was a “trusty” at the work farm. He slept in the basement of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Inda v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Kuhl v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. Smith, 21463 (12-5-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. State v. La FernierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State v. GallinaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
  4. State v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API