Legal Opinion

Edlebeck v. Hooten

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1963PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.

Although the affidavit in support of the motion was correctly characterized as skimpy, it is sufficient for this court to consider the counteraffidavits under our decisional procedure. Hyland Hall & Co. v. Madison Gas & Electric Co. (1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 238, 105 N. W. (2d) 305; Dottai v. Altenbach (1963), 19 Wis. (2d) 373, 120 N. W. (2d) 41. A hunting trip for pleasure or sport and not as a commercial venture or primarily for the purpose of obtaining meat raises a legal question of joint. adventure even though there is a sharing of the game and of the expenses. No dispute exists in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  2. Sommerfield v. FluryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Brubaker v. Iowa CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Krause v. HallWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Dottai v. AltenbachWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Price v. HalsteadWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill GroupCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006
  3. Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Monona Shores, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Ruppa v. American States InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Bach v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

17 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