Legal Opinion

Malinowski v. Moss

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1928PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.

The trial court refused to entertain a motion for a new trial after verdict and judgment, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to do' so under the statute creating the court, ch. 244, Laws of 1921. ' This statute was before this court in La Bowe v. Balthazor, 180 Wis. 419, 193 N. W. 244, where the jury fee was held to be a violation of the constitutional guaranty of jury trial. The statute was thereafter amended (ch. 187, Laws of 1923) to provide for a constitutional jury. The appellants contend that the statute should be construed to give the municipal court power to grant a new trial,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Capital Traction Co. v. HofSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. State ex rel. Carnation Milk Products Co. v. EmeryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Davis v. HudsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
  4. Thoe v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Opinion of the Justices to the SenateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. In re CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. In Re Hon. Charles E. KadingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Thompson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  4. City of Madison v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Peterson v. WingertsmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961

8 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