Legal Opinion

Ritterbusch v. Sexmith

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1950PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

All the actions, at this stage of the proceedings, present the same undisputed facts and the same issues and we will speak as though there was a single plaintiff and the defendants were the assured and his insurer. The question involved is accurately stated in respondent's brief as follows:

“Does section 260.11 (1), Wisconsin statutes, relating to joinder of an insurance company as a party defendant in an action for damages caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, control the usual no-action clause in a policy of insurance, issued in Massachusetts, but specifically covering the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Davis v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Pawlowski v. EskofskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Oertel v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Lang v. BaumannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Byerly v. ThorpeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Bielski v. SchulzeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Kranzush v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Marchlik v. Coronet InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Gonzalez Ex Rel. Bichler v. City of FranklinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Peterson v. WarrenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

22 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