Legal Opinion

Whalen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1971No. 350PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

Appellant is, of course, correct — the evidence which was admitted to show the policy limits was inadmissible as hearsay. It was acknowledged during oral argument that Exhibit 1 was a nullity. We conclude that Exhibit 18 was also inadmissible. It consisted of a copy of what purported to be the particular insurance policy. What the defendant ostensibly sought to prove was the contents of the policy. Counsel for defendant attempted this proof by the following declaration 1 appended to the copy of the policy:

“I hereby declare that I have examined the records in the office of State Farm Fire and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Peterson v. WarrenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Thommen v. Aldine Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Kubiak v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Corpron v. Safer Foods, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Pringle v. Neff, Exctx.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hirdler v. Boyd, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1985
  2. Hirdler v. Boyd, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API