Peter M. Chalik & Associates v. Hermes
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtConnor T. Hansen, J.
This appeal is from a judgment entered pursuant to motion for a directed verdict in favor of defendant. On review, this court must ex amine 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 been denied. This court, in Low v. Siewert (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 251, 252, 195 N. W. 2d 451, recently stated:
“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…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Zillmer v. MiglautschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Shell Oil Co. v. KaplerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- McCabe v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Boutelle v. ChrislawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Pellaton v. BrunskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Valiga v. National Food Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Mansfield v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Frumento v. MezzanotteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- H.B. Fuller Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Kinetic Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.