Patitucci v. Gerhardt
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
The appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict The appeal raises the question of the propriety of permitting plaintiff to recover full damages in this action. The cross-examination of the plaintiff disclosed that he carried collision insurance upon his car; that this collision insurance provided for the payment of all loss due to collision within the limits of the policy, over and above the sum of $75, and that the insurance company had paid to plaintiff the difference between the sum of $342 and $75. Upon the basis of this testimony the appellant…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gatzweiler v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Swarthout v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Pratt v. RadfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Frankfort General Insurance v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
- Wunderlich v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Garrity v. Rural Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Lambert v. WrenschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Koffman v. LeichtfussWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
- Heifetz v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Cunningham v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.