DEBELAK BROS., INC. v. Mille
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.
In this case, all testimony was taken and proposed findings of fact prepared by a court-appointed referee. Particularly in a time of heavy work loads and backlogs of pending cases facing trial courts, this statutorily authorized 1 use of fact-finding referees is one available resource in increasing the number of lawsuits that can be handled in a particular court. The procedure involved should be encouraged, not discouraged. However, in this case, as they had every right to do in order to conserve costs of litigation the attorneys stipulated that proceedings before the referee would not be…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Mueller v. MiziaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- De Toro v. Di-La-Ch, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Bolick v. GallagherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Borgrud v. First National BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Earl v. NappWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Moser Paper Co. v. North Shore Publishing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Waukesha Concrete Products Co. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
- Gander Mountain, Inc. v. Impact Industries, Inc. (In Re Gander Mountain, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1983
- Howe v. Scannell (In Re Scannell)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1986
- Lyman Lumber of Wisconsin, Inc. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.