Legal Opinion

Fifer v. Dix

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided February 24, 2000No. 99-1717PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeininger, J.

¶ 1. William Fifer appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint against Lyle Dix. Fifer alleged in his complaint that Dix is strictly liable under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (1997-98) 2 for injuries Fifer incurred when he was bitten by Dix's dog, and alternatively, that the dog-bite injuries resulted from Dix's negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Dix, concluding that Dix was not statutorily liable for Fifer's injuries and that Fifer had failed to submit any evidence of Dix's negligence. We conclude that the trial court properly dismissed Fifer's negligence claim but that it erred…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  2. M & I First National Bank v. Episcopal Homes Management, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
  3. Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State Bank of La Crosse v. ElsenCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
  5. Hopper v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Fandrey v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Cole v. HubanksWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Underhill v. HobelmanNebraska Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Danks v. Stock Building Supply, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006
  5. Malik v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001

7 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