Legal Opinion

Reykdal v. Miller

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1934PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The issues upon the trial below as outlined by the pleadings relate, first, to the negligence of appellant Miller and the respondent T. J. Reykdal as such negligence affected the respondent Mabel Reykdal, and, second, as to the negligence of appellant Miller as it affected the respondent T. J. Reykdal. The court, at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case in chief, was of the opinion that no cause of action existed in favor of the respondent Mabel Reykdal against T. J. Reykdal and granted a nonsuit as to him and his insurance carrier. From this ruling the respondent Mabel Reykdal has not appealed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Campbell v. SutliffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Muska v. ApelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Nelson v. Duluth Street Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Prasch v. PraschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Guderyon v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Jolitz v. FintchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Asplund v. PalmerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Weir v. CafferyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

4 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