Legal Opinion

Mittelstadt v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1957PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.

It is our opinion that the verdict must be upheld in so far as it finds Quigley was not negligent. There is nothing in the record which would appear to cast doubt upon his veracity. The only logical inference to be drawn from the physical facts is that Esther Long invaded the north lane of the road, as Quigley testified. Respondent refers to Exhibit 12, a photograph of the Long car, claiming it shows damage on the left front, the inference being that the impact was to the left front. We cannot see that the photograph bears out this contention. It shows clearly the impact was to the right…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Olson v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Smith v. City of Green BayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  3. McNamer v. American Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Mayhew v. Wisconsin Zinc Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Sandley v. PilsnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. HorneNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Abbott v. Truck Insurance Exchange Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Severson v. HauckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Severson v. HauckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API