Fleischhacker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWingert, J.
The five-sixths verdict státute, sec. 270.25 (1), provides in part that “If more than one question must be answered to arrive at a verdict on the same cause of action, the same five sixths of the jurors must agree on all such questions.” The quoted provision, enacted by ch. 36, Laws of 1951, is consistent with the decisions of this court.
It has often been held that in order to have a good verdict, the same ten jurors must concur in the answers to all questions which are necessary to support a judgment. Biersach v. Wechselberg, 206 Wis. 113, 120, 238 N. W. 905; Stylow v. Milwaukee E. R. & T.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McCauley v. International Trading Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Haase v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
- Biersach v. WechselbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Will v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- Scipior v. SheaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gourley Ex Rel. Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2003
- O'Connell v. Chesapeake & Ohio RailroadOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Ferguson v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Strupp v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Hupf v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.