Legal Opinion

Town of Fifield v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1984No. 82-1444PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

(on motion for reconsideration). The motion for reconsideration calls attention to footnote 3 and recites that the “defendants-appellants have never had appellate review on the issue of the sufficiency of proof of the consequential damages awarded to the Town of Fifield.” The defendants are correct in that assertion; and, accordingly, we have examined the trial transcript, the instructions, and the verdict. We conclude that the evidence adduced at trial and believed by the jury is sufficient to sustain the jury verdict of $13,000 for consequential damages. That portion of the verdict and the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Valiga v. National Food Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  2. State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Ray I. Jones Service Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1970
  3. Town of Fifield v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. PALISADES COLLECTION LLC v. KalalCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2010
  2. Bank of America v. NeisCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2013
  3. Berg-Zimmer & Associates, Inc. v. Central Manufacturing Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API