Kennedy-Ingalls Corp. v. Meissner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.
The two questions presented on this appeal are: (1) Do the facts as pleaded in Smith’s proposed complaint and in Kennedy-Ingalls’ amended complaint establish that *104Smith has been subrogated to part of Kennedy-Ingalls’ cause of action against the defendants ?(2) If the foregoing question be answered in the affirmative, is Smith entitled as a matter of right, and not discretion, to intervene in the action instituted by Kennedy-Ingalls against the defendants?
In passing on the issue of subrogation, which Smith contends arose out of the compromise settlement of the prior James action, it is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
- Patitucci v. GerhardtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Cohan v. Associated Fur Farms, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Stroh v. O'HearnMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- First National Bank v. SchrubenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Dippel v. ScianoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Smith v. Atco Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- D'ANGELO v. Cornell Paperboard Products Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- West American Ins. Co. v. Yellow Cab Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
- The Dow Chemical Corporation v. Weevil-Cide Company, Inc. Research Products Company Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.