Legal Opinion

Callies v. Reliance Laundry Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1925PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

The appellant’s counsel do not very seriously controvert the correctness of the answer finding the minor guilty of contributory negligence, and a perusal of the evidence satisfies us that the answer is in accordance with the facts shown. But counsel contend that notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the minor the mother is entitled to recover, and that is the question squarely raised by the appeal. In order that the appellant’s contention may be correctly set forth we quote somewhat at length from their brief, which shows the major contentions contended for by them. They state:

“Perhap…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Prideaux v. City of Mineral PointWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Tidd v. . SkinnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  3. Ewen v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Reiter v. GroberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. HoneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Wangen v. Ford Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Kenneth G. Lloyd v. Irma Loeffler and Alvin F. LoefflerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
  3. Shockley Ex Rel. Shockley v. PrierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Theama v. City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Thibeault v. PooleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933

46 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