Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, C. J.
Did the order sufficiently set forth reasons ?
Every order granting a new trial should specify the grounds therefor. The absence of such specifications does not void the order except in the case of an order granted in the interest of justice. Otherwise, if no grounds are stated for the granting of a new trial, it is deemed to be for error. Sec. 270.49 (2), Stats. This section requires an order granting a new trial in the interest of justice to state the reasons for such an order “in detail therein” or to incorporate the memorandum decision which sets forth such reasons.
The first assignment of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Guptill v. RoemerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Fontaine v. FontaineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Mainz v. LundWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Lawver v. City of Park FallsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Hillstead v. ShawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- J.A.L. v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
- Martin v. BussertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Toulon v. NagleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Jos. P. Jansen Co. v. Milwaukee Area District Board of Vocational, Technical & Adult EducationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
- Bartell v. LuedtkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.