Legal Opinion

Keller v. Kraft

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided April 12, 2005No. 2004AP1315PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEDEMEYER, PJ.

¶ 1. James R. Kraft and the City of Milwaukee appeal from an order denying their motion seeking summary judgment.1 Kraft and the City claim that the trial court should have granted summary judgment because the Kellers' case is barred by the exclusive remedy provision(s) of the worker's compen*787sation law. Because we agree with Kraft and the City, we reverse the trial court's order and remand with directions to the trial court to grant judgment dismissing the Kellers' complaint.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2. This is the second time this case has been before us. The pertinent facts are set forth in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Hughes v. Chrysler Motors Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Bantz v. Montgomery Estates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  4. Keller v. KraftCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
  5. Closser v. Town of HardingCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Flores v. GoemanCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2013
  2. Keller v. KraftCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API