Legal Opinion

Peterson v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1963PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

Since there are two separate appeals we will consider them separately.

Liability of Sinclair Refining Company.

The primary issue raised in the appeal by the Petersons and their insurer, Rural Mutual, may be stated as follows: Did the contract between the Petersons and Sinclair for the sale and delivery of fuel oil contain an implied promise of safe delivery which could not be avoided by hiring an independent contractor to make physical delivery and which promise, in the event of unsafe delivery, could give rise to liability on the part of Sinclair for damages to the Petersons and their insurer,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Colton v. FoulkesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Larson v. Heintz Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Presser v. Siesel Construction Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Meiser v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Jorgenson v. City of SuperiorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Alsteen v. GehlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Federal Communications Commission v. Airadigm Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2010
  4. Brooks v. HayesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Anchorage, Inc. v. Superior Burner Service Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1967

14 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