Legal Opinion

Ulmen v. Schwieger

Montana Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1932No. 6,879PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that(a) It wholly fails to disclose the causal connection between the respondent's injuries and appellant's breach of duty, if any. It is elementary that the breach of the very duty made to appear by the complaint must be the proximate cause of the injuries sustained; otherwise a cause of action is not stated. (Robinson v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 80 Mont. 431, 261 P. 253; O'Neil v.Christian, 60 Mont. 460, 199 P. 706.) While respondent details how he and his sister came upon the grade and ran headlong into the…

2Cases cited81 opinions

  1. Water Co. v. WareSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Atlanta & Florida Railroad v. KimberlySupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  3. Robinson v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1927
  4. City of Anderson v. FlemingIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Cameron Mill & Elevator Co. v. AndersonTexas Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Stepanek v. Kober ConstructionMontana Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Maguire v. StateMontana Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Cash v. Otis Elevator Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Beckman v. Butte-Silver Bow CountyMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Kemp v. Bechtel Construction Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1986

71 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