Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ter Maat v. Barnett

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided May 22, 1990No. 89-1777Published

1DissentFine, J.

Although, as explained below, I generally agree with the majority's conclusion that a sheriff may not demand indemnity as a precondition to the execution on a judgment unless the sheriff has a good-faith reasonable doubt concerning the property's ownership or whether it is subject to execution, the appellate record here does not support the majority's mandate. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

*745HH

The sheriff is a county officer whose position is created by the constitution, Wis. Const, art. VI, sec. 4, with such inherent duties, powers, and prerogatives as were extant when the constitution…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McCleary v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  2. State ex rel. Kennedy v. BrunstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Wisconsin Professional Police Ass'n v. County of DaneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Grace v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  5. State v. KasterCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989

4 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