Legal Opinion

Low v. Siewert

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1972No. 1PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, C. J.

The procedure of reserving the disposition of a motion to direct a verdict until after the jury returns its verdict is the preferred procedure. Although such procedure allows some hindsight with a jury’s verdict and while an appeal is almost inevitable when the court differs with the verdict, at least a retrial is avoided if there is a reversal. In reviewing the granting of a motion to direct a verdict, this court must examine the evidence most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed and if there is any evidence which will sustain his cause of action, the motion should have…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Turk v. H. C. Prange Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Davis v. SkilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Boutin v. Cardinal Theatre Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Strack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Heiden v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. May v. Skelley Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Valiga v. National Food Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Kobelinski v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Peter M. Chalik & Associates v. HermesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

8 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