Legal Opinion

Duel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1941PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed January 13, 1942 :

Wickhem, J.

It is plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s methods of conducting its business are unlawful under the Wisconsin statutes, and that under sec. 201.34, Stats., plaintiff has the power and the duty to refuse to renew defendant’s license. The principal controversy rages about defendant’s exaction, in addition to the charge which it denominates a “premium,” of a membership fee for which it purports tO' give no insurance and in respect of which it sets up no- reserves. The methods of business of defendant, and particularly the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Phillips v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  4. Ex Parte BransfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  5. State ex rel. Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. WhitmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. DuelSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Lindas v. CadyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Allstate Insurance v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. State Ex Rel. Schleck v. Zoning Board of AppealsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  5. State Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1960

16 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