Legal Opinion

Roeske v. Schmitt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1954PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Appellant contends that the evidence fails to support the finding that Tyrer was passing at the intersection, and that in any event if he was negligent in that respect such negligence was not causal. As appears from our statement of the facts, we are satisfied that there is support for the finding of negligence. We agree with appellant, however, that it was not a cause of the collision. By passing the Herheim car he placed his car in his left lane, at most 11 of 12 feet nearer the approaching Schmitt car. Considering the speed at which Schmitt was traveling, Tyrer’s car would have been struck…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Standard Accident Insurance Co. v. RunquistWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Neuser v. ThelenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Schultz v. BroganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Kilcoyne v. TrauschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Smedley v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  2. William Thedorf v. Sam LipseyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
  3. Caldwell v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Dane CountyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
  5. Smith v. Rural Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

21 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