Legal Opinion

Gage v. Seal

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1967PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.

The appellant Sandra Seal contends that she is entitled to a new trial because it was prejudicial error not to give the requested instruction on the application of the emergency doctrine and, further, that a new trial should be granted because it was prejudicial error not to inform appellants’ counsel that a signaling instruction earlier refused would be given and in submitting a special verdict to the jury in which issues of negligence, causation, and comparison appeared in single questions.

*664“The application of the emergency rule rests upon the psychological fact that the time which elapses…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Geis v. HirthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Shaw v. WuttkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Cook v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Vallie v. General Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Wanserski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Lutz v. Shelby Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Menge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. McCrossen v. Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Hoeft v. FriedelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Edeler v. O'BRIENWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968

8 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