Legal Opinion

Kelley v. Tomahawk Motor Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1932PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.

No claim is now made that the complaint does not state a good cause of action for the modification, reformation, or cancellation of the release. The principal contention of the appellants is that it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. This contention is based upon the claim that, since it appears from the allegations of the complaint that the plaintiff’s claim for compensation is pending before the Industrial Commission, the commission has full and complete authority to receive parol testimony to contradict the terms of the written release for the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Klein v. BarryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Wisconsin Mutual Liability Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Red Rover Copper Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. MatlockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  3. Bankers Indemnity Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. BakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Travelers Insurance Company v. SneddonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1957

3 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