1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.
  4. 272 Wis.
  5. 272 Wis. 589 (1956)
 

THOMPSON v. PRINCETON

272 Wis. 589 (1956)

THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. PRINCETON, Defendant and Appellant: STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Impleaded Defendant and Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1956.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellant there was a brief by Henry C. Oakey of Osceola, attorney, and Doar & Knowles of New Richmond of counsel, and oral argument by John Doar.

For the respondent there was a brief by E. Nelton of Balsam Lake, and for the impleaded respondent by George W. Peterson of Balsam Lake, and oral argument by Mr. Nelton and Mr. Peterson.

CURRIE, J.

Among other contentions raised in behalf of the defendant Princeton on this appeal is that she is entitled to a new trial because of two alleged erroneous rulings on evidence by the trial court. Because of our conclusion that such rulings did constitute prejudicial error we find it unnecessary to pass upon any of the other issues raised.

The only question submitted in the special verdict as to Mrs. Princeton's alleged negligence related to the operation...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases