Legal Opinion
Tri City Fur Foods, Inc. v. Ammerman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 5, 1959PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, JC
Tri. City first submits that the jury finding on question 1 is not supported by the evidence.
“It is the well-recognized rule that when a jury’s findings are attacked, particularly when they have had the trial court’s approval, our inquiry is limited to the issue whether there is any credible evidence that, under any reasonable view, supports such findings. With the rule in mind we consider that it is necessary to recite only the testimony which supports the jury’s findings. Some of it is in dispute, but as to the disputed testimony we must recognize that it was for the jury to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Olson v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Cohan v. Associated Fur Farms, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Arndt Bros. Minkery v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
3Cited by6 opinions
- Eugene P. Murphy and the Travelers Insurance Company v. The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Schroeder v. RaichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Stevens v. White Motor Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Perry Creek Cranberry Corp. v. Hopkins Agricultural Chemical Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Nolop v. SkempWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.