Legal Opinion

Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1957PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.

It is the position of the plaintiff that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict. With respect to such position it is contended (a) that the physical facts rendered incredible the testimony of Theresa Peters as to events occurring before, at, and after the collision; that the plaintiff’s evidence conclusively established that Theresa Peters was negligent and that Robert Baughman was not negligent; that since no jury issue was created by the evidence, the plaintiff was entitled as a matter of law to a finding that Theresa Peters was negligent, and that Robert…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Glatz v. Kroeger Bros.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. RunquistWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Salchert v. ReinigWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Strnad v. Co-Operative Insurance MutualWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Kleckner v. Great American Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Carstensen v. FaberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Nieman v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Seefluth v. Herman Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API