Legal Opinion

Schoenfeldt v. Babcock

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1965PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The trial court granted a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s case, and we must determine whether such ruling was proper. Upon a motion for nonsuit, the evidence is to be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must also be given the benefit of the most-favorable inferences which can be deduced from the evidence. Bartz v. Braun (1961), 14 Wis. (2d) 425, 427, 111 N. W. (2d) 431; Lake Mills v. Veldhuizen (1953), 263 Wis. 49, 51, 56 N. W. (2d) 491.

There- are three principal matters which we will discuss: (1) Does the safe-place statute apply? (2) was there a duty…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Campbell v. SutliffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Cross v. LeuenbergerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Schlicht v. ThesingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Lehman v. Amsterdam Coffee Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Boyd v. Logan Jones Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Williams v. Rank & Son Buick, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Nelson v. Travelers InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State Ex Rel. Skibinski v. TadychWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Strelecki v. Firemans Insurance Co. of NewarkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Geiger v. Milwaukee Guardian InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994

1 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