Legal Opinion
Shovers v. Hahn
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided November 8, 1922PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.
It was established in the case of Frechette v. Ravin, 145 Wis. 589, 130 N. W. 453, that in an action by the person injured for malpractice founded on tort the notice required by sub. (5), sec. 4222, Stats., was necessary because it was an action for an injury to the person; and in Klingbeil v. Saucerman, 165 Wis. 60, 160 N. W. 1051, it was held that the notice mentioned was necessary in an action by the person injured for malpractice founded on contract. It is therefore settled that were this, an action by the person injured it could not be maintained without the notice.
It is claimed by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mulvey v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Klingbeil v. SaucermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
- Malloy v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Hoffmann v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Frechette v. RavnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Guse v. A. O. Smith Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Korth v. American Family Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- Reistad v. ManzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Voss v. TittelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Ylen v. Mutual Service Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953