Vinicky v. Midland Mutual Casualty Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
Were the damages awarded, to Smaha excessive ?
The trial judge found that the damages were not excessive. We have previously held that:
“The trial judge has an advantage over the appellate court in that he not only sees and hears the testimony, which we can only read from the transcript, but he also has the same opportunity to observe the injured person as does the jury.” Makowski v. Ehlenbach (1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 38, 43, 103 N. W. (2d) 907.
In the recent case of Bentzler v. Braun (1967), 34 Wis. (2d) 362, 389, 149 N. W. (2d) 626, we quoted with approval the statement appearing in Ballard v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bentzler v. BraunWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Makowski v. EhlenbachWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Ballard v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Manning v. School District No. 6Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Sundquist v. Madison Railways Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Bovsun v. SanperiNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Bowen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
- Consolidated Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. BallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Roberts v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- State v. CooganCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.