De Brue v. Frank
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Appellant’s first point is that the evidence does not sustain the finding of the trial court to the effect that Christofferson was negligent. The most favorable thing that can be said upon this is that there is a conflict in the evidence as to the negligence of Christofferson. This compels the application of the rule that when, upon evidence fairly justifying either of two inferences, the trial court has drawn one, the decision of the trial court must be affirmed. Appellant’s claim-that the accident was caused by a rear-end collision is met by testimony and comparative measurements tending to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wait v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- Consolidated Coach Corporation v. BurgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Ellis v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
- Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Milwaukee General Construction Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Mitchell v. RaymondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Security Insurance Co. v. Tribunal SuperiorSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1973
- Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company, and Third-Party v. City of Fond Du Lac, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- Godfrey v. Tidewater Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Distefano v. LambornSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.