Legal Opinion

Bigley v. Brandau

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1973No. 145PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The appellants assert that the judgment should be reversed in the interest of justice. This court does have the discretionary power to reverse a trial court judgment, direct entry of a proper judgment or remand for a new trial by virtue of sec. 251.09, Stats. The appellants’ brief does not specify whether they seek a new trial or reversal and judgment.

The rule that has been consistently followed is that this court will not exercise its discretionary power to order a new trial unless it is convinced there has been a probable miscarriage of justice and that a new trial would probably produce a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wells v. Dairyland Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  2. De Toro v. Di-La-Ch, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Rodenbeck v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Cornwell v. RohrerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Okrasinski v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. American Property Services, Inc. v. BarringerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Roach v. KeaneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Valiga v. National Food Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Soczka v. RechnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976

8 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