Legal Opinion

Hennepin Transportation Co. v. Schirmers

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1957PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJBroadfoot, J.

At the close of the testimony the plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict in their favor, which was denied. The plaintiffs first contend that there was error in the trial in the following respects: (1) Failure to grant their motion for a directed verdict; and (2) failure to grant plaintiffs’ motion to change the jury’s answers in the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In order to discuss the first contention it will be necessary to state some of the testimony.

Celestine Schirmers testified as follows: At the time of the accident he was thirty years of age. He had been…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. ReinemannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Strnad v. Co-Operative Insurance MutualWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Kleckner v. Great American Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Blom v. KumbierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Koniecko v. HuffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wanserski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Pagel v. HolewinskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  3. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Werren v. Allied American Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Koruc v. SchroederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API