Legal Opinion

Rock v. Sarazen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1932PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The main contention of the defendant is that upon the evidence the< plaintiffs were guilty of negligence contributing to their injuries as matter of law. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant was driving a truck north on an arterial highway paved with concrete. The plaintiff was driving an automobile west on a crossroad intending to tupi south at the intersection with the arterial. There was a stop sign at the arterial which under the statute, sec. 89.69, required the plaintiff to stop before entering the intersection. According to the testimony of *128the plaintiff and the other…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wisconsin Allied Truck Owners Ass'n v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Mertens v. Lake Shore Yellow Cab & Transfer Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Tomberlin v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Cline v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Thieme v. WeykerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Whyte v. LindblomWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Lind v. LundWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Cherney v. SimonisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Crane v. WeberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Lake to Lake Dairy Co-Operative v. AndrewsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

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