Legal Opinion

Krueger v. Herman Mutual Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1966PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The problem in this case concerns a collapsed compromise. Settlement discussions were conducted by the attorneys, and they thought they had struck a bargain. However, the plaintiff was displeased with the arrangement. We must determine whether the trial court was correct in giving effect to the settlement despite the plaintiff’s claim that she neither accepted the settlement nor authorized her attorney to do so.

We shall first dispose of two matters which are not deemed to be crucial and which we believe can be readily resolved. Mrs. Krueger had a claim for her own personal injuries as well as…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Derber v. SkaffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Hansche v. A. J. Conroy, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Fosila v. O'DonnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Domasek v. KluckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Medlock v. SchmidtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Domino v. Walworth CountyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
  2. Adelmeyer v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
  3. Carey v. Dairyland Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Gliniecki v. Borden, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1978
  5. Mitchell, Shayd v. Meyer, BruceDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API