Legal Opinion

Tiemann v. May

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1940PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

Defendants’ principal contention is that the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that defendants violated the safe-place statute. This calls for a review of the facts.

Defendants own a farm in Kenosha county. Plaintiff was an employee of defendants. In 1935, defendants purchased a 1935 model Case tractor and corn binder, equipped with a device known as a power take-off. When assembled and in working order the tractor not only pulled the corn binder but through the power take-off and attached shaft furnished the power to run the machinery of the corn binder.

As indicated in the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Bloor v. Town of DelafieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Mullen v. Larson-Morgan Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Bunce v. Grand & Sixth Building, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Kreider v. Wisconsin River Paper & Pulp Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. prod.liab.rep.(cch)p. 13,796 Julie Klonowski, Now Arndt, and Threshermen's Mutual Insurance Company v. International Armament CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  2. Wasley v. KosmatkaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Yaun v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Novak v. City of DelavanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Blanco v. Sun Ranches, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1951

6 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