Legal Opinion

Vredenburg v. Safety Devices Corp.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1955PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The allegations of the amended complaint material to the questions raised by the appeal are:

“3. That, as the plaintiff is informed and verily believes, the defendant has since December 1, 1953, and at all times material herein been engaged in the manufacture, sale, and marketing of a metal collapsible sawhorse known as ‘Handi-Horse;’ . . .
“4. That the plaintiff has, since May 28, 1949, produced an adjustable steel horse known as ‘Handi-Horse;’ that said name ‘Handi-Horse’ was published and the plaintiff’s product identified by said name ‘Handi-Horse.’
“5. That the plaintiff has since said time…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Halsey, Stuart & Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Marshall v. PinkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Howard v. HowardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Welch v. Chippewa Sales Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Listman Mill Co. v. William Listman Milling Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Werner v. A. L. Grootemaat & Sons, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Howard v. DuerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Waste Management, Inc. Ex Rel. Waste Management, Inc. Boeing v. Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling AuthorityWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Blue Ribbon Feed Company, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
  5. Boerschinger v. Elkay Enterprises, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

10 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