Hagenah v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

116 N.W. 843, 136 Wis. 300, 1908 Wisc. LEXIS 198
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided September 29, 1908·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

The following opinion was filed June 17, 1908:

Pee Cueiam.

Justice Timlin having been of counsel in this case and not sitting, the court, after a careful consideration of the questions involved, is equally divided; three justices favoring affirmance and three reversal. This situation, under the established rule, necessitates affirmance of the judgment below. Jacobs v. Queen Ins. Co. 123 Wis. 608, 101 N. W. 1090; Swenson v. Flint, 123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135; Francisco v. Hatch, 124 Wis. 220, 101 N. W. 1135; Cook v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. 125 Wis. 528, 103 N. W. 1097.

By the Court. — The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied September 29, 1908.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hagenah v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 116 N.W. 843, 136 Wis. 300, 1908 Wisc. LEXIS 198 (Wis. 1908).

116 N.W. 843 (Hagenah v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott Smith v. Greg Kleynerman
2017 WI 22 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2017)
Todd v. Todd
16 Wis. 2d 635 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1962)
Village of Brown Deer v. City of Milwaukee
114 N.W.2d 493 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1962)
Kroner v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America
184 N.W. 1037 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1922)
Griffin v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.
185 N.W. 639 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1922)
Application of Gruhl Sash & Door Co.
180 N.W. 845 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1921)
Racine Auto Tire Co. v. Hansen
180 N.W. 124 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1920)
State v. Carter
166 N.W. 657 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1918)