Legal Opinion

Hein v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1966PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

Two issues are raised by this appeal:

First, did the trial court err in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment?

*706Second, if not, did the trial court err in allowing the taxation of attorney’s fees in favor of the insurer?

Summary Judgment.

State Farm is not entitled to summary judgment unless the facts presented conclusively show that the plaintiff’s action has no merit and cannot be maintained as to it.1 Summary judgment should not be granted where there are substantial issues of fact to be determined, when the evidence on a material issue is in conflict, or when there are permissible…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Schneck v. Mutual Service Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Rheingans v. HepflerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Home Savings Bank v. BentleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Bryan v. NobleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Fjeseth v. New York Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Leszczynski v. SurgesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Jimmy N. Looney, Clinton M. Hickman, Betty Cureton, Margaret Coon, Martha Cooper and R. T. Cooper v. Allstate Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
  3. Thompson v. Dairyland Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Knutson v. MuellerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Jones v. PerkinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

4 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