Legal Opinion

Auster v. Zaspel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1955PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

If there is any credible evidence which, under any reasonable view, fairly admits of an inference that supports the jury’s finding, neither the trial court nor an appellate court has any authority to change the jury’s answers or findings. Millard v. North River Ins. Co. (1930), 201 Wis. 69, 228 N. W. 746; Trautmann v. Charles Schefft & Sons Co. (1930), 201 Wis. 113, 228 N. W. 741. The jury’s verdict should not be disturbed where there is credible evidence to support it. Sovich v. Loewn (1929), 198 Wis. 89, 223 N. W. 429. The parties agree that “The only issue involved on this appeal is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Trautmann v. Charles Schefft & Sons Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Klas v. FenskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Havens v. HavensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Millard v. North River InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Sandley v. PilsnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Giese v. Montgomery Ward, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Jost v. Dairyland Power CooperativeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Kanzenbach v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Leatherman v. GarzaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. D. R. W. Corporation v. CordesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

12 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