Felix v. Soderberg
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
Many questions, some important and some not, are raised in briefs of counsel. It is claimed that the verdict was perverse as to damages and as to the finding that Fijalkiewicz was free from negligence. Complaint is made because it appeared in the course of the trial that the defendant Soderberg’s car was insured. It is also claimed that remarks of counsel were prejudicial. We have carefully examined the record with reference to these assignments of error and find none of them prejudicial. Similar questions have been treated many times in the opinions of this court and for that reason it is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rusczck v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by19 opinions
- Johnson v. HeintzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Lacy v. Pacific Gas Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1934
- Butts v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Kassela v. HosethWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Guderyon v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.