Legal Opinion

Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. Runquist

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1932PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

Defendant’s first contention is that the finding of negligence on the part of Runquist has no support in the evidence. The contention requires a consideration of the facts. On the day of the accident Runquist was driving his automobile in a southerly direction on county highway H. His grandson and one August Carlson were in the car with him. Wangen was driving his car north on the same highway. In the car with Wangen were Harold Lee, Elizabeth Carter, and Virginia Johnson. Immediately prior to the accident Wangen had driven over the crest of a hill at a rate of speed variously estimated from…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sommerfield v. FluryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Poneitowcki v. HarresWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Zutter v. O'ConnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Bergstein v. PopkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Glatz v. Kroeger Bros.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Walker v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Ainsworth v. BergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Young v. Nunn, Bush & Weldon Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Peiffer v. Allstate Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Roeske v. SchmittWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954

20 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