Legal Opinion

Meihost v. Meihost

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1966PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

Appellants predicate their action for damages solely on the ground that respondent violated Milwaukee ordinance 101-112. However, because the question of liability stemming from leaving keys in an unattended auto should be completely resolved, the complaint should be interpreted as also raising the companion issue of whether respondent is liable on a common-law negligence theory irrespective of the breach of any ordinance.2 Accordingly, the first two issues presented on this appeal, both of which are ones of first impression in this state, are:(1) Was the respondent, because of a violation of…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Richards v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Klassa v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Anderson v. TheisenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  5. Schilling v. StockelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. McClenahan v. CooleyTennessee Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Coffey v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Hartford Insurance v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  4. Richardson Ex Rel. Estate of Richardson v. Carnegie Library Restaurant, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Walker v. BignellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981

36 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