Legal Opinion

Prahl v. Hogensen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 11, 1924PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJoNES, J.

Since we have decided that there should be a new trial in this case, it is neither necessary nor desirable that the facts should be stated in great detail. It is undisputed that the plaintiff, while riding as a guest in a Stanley automobile in a southerly direction on the Kilboum road, was injured in a collision with a Maxwell automobile, driven by the defendant in an easterly direction on the Ryan road, at a point where these two roads intersect at right angles in Milwaukee county. The collision occurred in broad daylight at about 7:15 o’clock in the morning of the 4th of December, 1922.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Whitney v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Lines v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Siegl v. WatsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Emmons v. SheldonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  5. Miner v. Town of RollingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dickman v. SchaefferWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. DeKeyser v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Steber v. NorrisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Hanks v. NorbyOregon Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Prahl v. HogensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API