¶1(dissenting). In considering this case I found no reason for reversing the order of the court below. A careful reading of the majority opinion discloses no such reason unless it is desirable to give the respondent more than he claims or to strike the appellant a little harder than he was ■stricken by the court below, or both. A suggestion in the *256opinion with reference to bow, those of the future may regard it meets my approval. It is quite a novel view that considerations which malte for the affirmance of an order granting a new trial under such circumstances are abhorrent technicalities.
159 Wis. 251
Pietsch v. McCarthy
Decided January 12, 1915
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1915-01-12
Williams, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff brought this action in tbe civil court of Milwaukee county to recover damages caused to his automobile by running into the rear of a wagon that was being driven by the defendant on one .of the streets of the city of Milwaukee. The collision occurred shortly after 6 o’clock on October 10, 1913. It was drizzling rain and quite dark. The alleged negligence of the defendant consisted in not carrying a light as required by a city ordinance.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1915-01-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2022
17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →