Swanson v. Maryland Casualty Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.
The testimony which we have recited represents the version of defendants and is in many respects contradicted.6 The rule requires, however, that we consider the evidence most favorably to defendants and to the jury’s findings. Koniecko v. Huffman (1953), 265 Wis. 79, 60 N. W. (2d) 729, 61 N. W. (2d) 880. For that reason we do not consider it necessary to recite the testimony which supports the claim of plaintiff, particularly since there is nothing in the record to indicate that the story as it was told by the defendants and their witnesses is incredible.
The trial court, instead of directing…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hilker v. Western Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Farrar v. FarrarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Schulz v. General Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Nimits v. Motor Transport Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Rasing v. HealzerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Heldt v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Baierl v. HinshawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Bassil v. FayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Callan v. WickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.