Legal Opinion

Foote v. Douglas County

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1966PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

Two issues were decided adversely to the appellant by the jury. Upon this appeal, the insurer seeks to upset one or both of such answers.

Permission to- Drive.

In its answer to the first question of the verdict, the jury found that there was implied permission for Carol Foote to operate the Rydberg car. The insurer urges that this answer cannot stand in view of the signed statements given to the representative of the insurer by Mrs. Rydberg and by Marla Rydberg.

In each statement there is a declaration that Mrs. Rydberg had given her daughter specific instructions not to permit anyone else to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kurz v. CollinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Schneck v. Mutual Service Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Pavelski v. RoginskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Krebsbach v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Hunt v. DollarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Billington v. Interinsurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. MFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. CheekAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  3. Upton v. TatroWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Derusha v. Iowa National Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Industrial Indemnity Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty CompaniesIdaho Supreme Court · 1969

6 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