Legal Opinion

Paepcke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1953PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Defendant contends, first, that it was not established that it had violated the safe-place statute with respect to lights. ‘There is a sharp conflict in the testimony bearing upon that issue.

Sylvia Paepcke, her sister, her brother-in-law, • and her mother each testified that when they entered the lot at about 9:00 p. m. it was in darkness. Police Officer Steuck who arrived at the scene between ten and twelve minutes after 9 p. m. testified that the lot was then in darkness. Police Officer Rutzen who arrived at about 9:08 or 9:09 observed that no lights were burning and that the lot was then…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Acme Markets., Inc. v. RemschelSupreme Court of Virginia · 1943
  2. Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Washburn v. SkoggWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Lowe v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Geraghty v. Burr Oak Lanes, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Isaacson v. Husson CollegeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
  3. Schwenn v. Loraine Hotel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Cheetham v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Wittka v. HartnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

3 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