Legal Opinion

Kastenson v. Kastenson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1972No. 10PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.

The respondents are proceeding against appellant under the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The elements of a cause of action under this doctrine were explained in Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc. (1965), 27 Wis. 2d 390, 393, 134 N. W. 2d 453, as follows:

“The attractive-nuisance doctrine is grounded in negligence. It was applied in Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co. [(1934), 215 Wis. 47, 254 N. W. 351] decided in Wisconsin in 1934. Paraphrasing the Angelier Case, the court in Nechodomu v. Lindstrom, [(1955), 269 Wis. 455, 456, 457, 69 N. W. 2d 608] set forth the elements of the cause of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Scheeler v. BahrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Nechodomu v. LindstromWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Massino v. SmaglickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ceplina v. South Milwaukee School BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Christians Ex Rel. Davis v. Homestake Enterprises, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Fleury Ex Rel. Capwell v. WentorfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Kempen v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Christians Ex Rel. Davis v. Homestake Enterprises, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981

3 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