Legal Opinion

Ballard v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1967PublishedCited by 56 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

The trial judge stated when ruling on the defendant’s motions after verdict:

“The damages awarded by the Jury are high. However, there is credible evidence to sustain them, and the Court cannot say that they are excessive.”

The review of this court:

“. . . must be based on the rule that when there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view supports the jury finding, especially when the verdict has the approval of the trial court, it should not be disturbed. This is another way of saying the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Springen v. Ager…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Boodry v. ByrneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Diemel v. WeirichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Springen v. Ager Plumbing & Heating, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Moritz v. Allied American Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Kablitz v. HoeftWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by56 opinions

  1. Bentzler v. BraunWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Cords v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Theama v. City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Lambert v. WrenschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

51 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