Jaster v. Miller
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
Counsel for Miller contends that since the bill of exceptions does not contain any motions made by the parties after verdict, this court may not properly review the evidence on appeal, citing Plankinton v. Gorman (1896), 93 Wis. 560, 67 N. W. 1128, and Cayouette v. Emil T. Raddant B. Co. (1908), 136 Wis. 634, 118 N. W. 204. The contention is without merit. In those cases there were no written motions and, no oral motions being preserved in the bill of exceptions, this court held it could not review the evidence because there was no showing that the proper motions had been made. Written…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hamilton v. ReinemannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Weiler v. Herzfeld-Phillipson Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- Witzko v. KoenigWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Plankinton v. GormanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Richter v. Standard Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Affett v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Gelhaar v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Baumgarten v. JonesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Miller v. KujakWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- State v. BagnallWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.