Legal Opinion

Holcomb v. Szymczyk

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1925PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.

It is conceded that the building in question was a public building within the meaning of sub. (12), sec. 101.01, Stats. It appears also that the defendant was the owner thereof. Sec. 101.06 provides:

“Every employer and every owner of a place of employment or a public building now or hereafter constructed shall so. construct, repair or maintain such place of employment or public building, and every architect shall so prepare the plans for the construction of such place of employment or public building, as to render the same safe.”

By the provisions of sub. (11) of sec. 101.01 the term *102“safe” as…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Juul v. School District of ManitowocWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Freimann v. CummingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Gobar v. Val. Blatz Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Waskow v. ReisingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Kurtz v. PaulyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Bent v. JonetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Antwaun A. Ex Rel. Muwonge v. Heritage Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church of the ReformationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Jaeger v. Evangelical Lutheran Holy Ghost CongregationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Waldman v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938

24 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