Legal Opinion

Pedek v. Wegemann

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1957PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.

The defendants first seek on this appeal to have the complaint dismissed on the ground that the two findings of causal negligence against Wegemann should be set aside, and, failing this, that it should be held that the negligence of Pedek is as a matter of law equal to, or greater than, the negligence of Wegemann. If these issues should be decided adversely to defendants’ contentions, then a new trial is requested on the following grounds: (1) Failure to submit a requested question in the special verdict inquiring as to whether Pedek was negligent in attempting to pass in the intersection;…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Home Savings Bank v. GertenbachWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Johannsen v. Peter P. Woboril, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Briggs Transfer Co. v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Swartz v. SommerfeldtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Pedek v. WegemannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Harry Crow & Son, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Wittig v. KeplerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API