Legal Opinion

Holzem v. Mueller

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1972No. 7PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

We cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that Mueller’s negligence was greater than Kelly Holzem’s. Testimony showed that both parties were negligent. The question is therefore one of apportionment. We have stated:

“. . . we must judge the jury verdict in the light of the familiar rules that (1) a jury verdict will not be upset if there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view fairly admits of an inference supporting the findings, (2) this is particularly true when the verdict has the blessing of the trial court, and (3) the *393evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Delaney v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Lisowski v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Carlson v. Drews of Hales Corners, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Brewster v. LudtkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Lupie v. HartzheimWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Dunham v. Southside National Bank of MissoulaMontana Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Sambs v. City of BrookfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Matthies v. Positive Safety Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  5. McGowan v. StoryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975

10 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