Legal Opinion

Hughes v. Fetter

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1950PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

]_Fairchild, J.

The Wisconsin statute, sec. 331.03, which the learned trial judge ruled prevented the maintenance of the action and required a dismissal of the complaint, does permit recovery for death by wrongful act. But it also contains the provision “that such action shall be brought for a death caused in this state.” The question is now raised whether for a death in Illinois this action can be maintained in Wisconsin notwithstanding that provision in our statute.

The right to recover for death by wrongful act is purely statutory. The words of the statute, “provided, that such action shall…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  4. Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Savings BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Harding v. American Glucose Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hughes v. FetterSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. First Nat. Bank of Chicago v. United Air LinesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1951
  3. Wisconsin Valley Trust Co. v. Department of RevenueWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Carlson v. Glenn L. Martin Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1952
  5. Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache TribeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991

6 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