Legal Opinion

Gabriel v. Gabriel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1973No. 34PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it can be carried too far when it comes to legal briefing.

On the question of equitable estoppel, appellant’s brief states, tersely enough, only that, “This is not an action in equity, this is an action in law to recover upon a cognovit note.” That is a correct statement. However, the defense of equitable estoppel is not limited to actions brought in equity. Equitable estoppel may apply to preclude the assertion of rights and liabilities under a note or contract.

On the issue of equitable estoppel, defendant’s brief notes that he “. . . voluntarily…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Allen v. BoomerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Odell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. LehmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Welfare Building & Loan Ass'n v. BreuerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Consumer's Co-Op of Walworth County v. OlsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Pleasure Time, Inc. v. KussWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Milas v. Labor Ass'n of Wisconsin, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
  4. M & I Bank v. First American National BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Schneider Fuel & Supply Co. v. West Allis State BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975

17 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