Legal Opinion

Quinn v. Hartmann

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1933PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.

The defendant contends (1) that the evidence wholly fails to prove any actionable negligence on his part at the time of or immediately prior to the collision; (2) that the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law and that such negligence proximately contributed to produce his injuries; (3) that the damages are excessive; (4) that the trial court erred to the prejudice of the defendant in charging the jury; and (5) that the form of the verdict was erroneous.

In the view we take of this controversy only the first contention, which incidentally involves the form of and the ultimate fact…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Feyrer v. DurbrowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Schulz v. General Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Reuhl v. UszlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Swanson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Beer v. StraufWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Kloss v. American Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948

2 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