Schiro v. Oriental Realty Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.
The plaintiffs seek to obtain a new trial because of alleged errors committed by the trial court. The claimed errors relate to questions 10 and 11 of the special verdict. By its answers to question 10, the jury attributed 50 per cent of the total aggregate negligence of Mrs. Schiro and the defendant to each. Question 11 was answered adversely to the plaintiffs inasmuch as the jury found that it would have been practicable for the plaintiffs, by a reasonable expenditure, to have filled in soil so as to have leveled the ground where the plaintiff claimed she lost her balance and fell. Thus, by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schiro v. Oriental Realty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Beach v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
- Langer v. Stegerwald Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Neeley v. Incorporated Town of MapletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Connally v. WoodsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Weeden v. City of BeloitWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Sandifer Motors, Inc. v. City of Roeland ParkCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1981
- McNamee v. Woodbury Congregation of Jehovah's WitnessesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Ken-Crete Products Co. v. State Highway CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Dawkins v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.