Rud v. McNamara
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
The issue raised on this appeal is whether there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the finding of the jury. To decide such an issue we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to sustain the verdict. Ruid v. Davis (1959), 8 Wis. (2d) 288, 99 N. W. (2d) 129; Mossak v. Pfost (1950), 258 Wis. 73, 44 N. W. (2d) 922; Madison Trust Co. v. Helleckson (1934), 216 Wis. 443, 257 N. W. 691. The defendant does not claim that representations concerning the condition of the old furnace were not made, but contends that they were not false and that the plaintiff did not believe or rely on…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wells v. Dairyland Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Michalski v. WagnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Madison Trust Co. v. HellecksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Musha v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Mossak v. PfostWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mustas v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Kronebusch v. MVBA Harvestore SystemCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Peterson v. WingertsmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Severson v. HauckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Mustas v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.