Ruby v. Ohio Casualty Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.
The general issue on this appeal is whether the defendant auto dealer and its insurer are entitled to summary judgment. Two subordinate questions are presented:
First, is an issue of fact raised as to whether a principal-agent relationship existed between Hendricks Motors and Euby at the time of the accident?
Although summary judgment is a drastic remedy 1 we have held that on summary judgment:
“. . . if the material facts are not in dispute and if the inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts are not doubtful and lead to only one conclusion, then only a matter of law is presented…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bond v. HarrelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Le Sage v. Le SageWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Mauel v. Wisconsin Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Calumet Auto Co. v. DinyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hoeft v. FriedelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Gervais v. KostinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Bolen v. BolenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Maziasz v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970