Hartwig v. Harvey
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
Whether the appellant should be made a party defendant to the action was a matter which rested in the sound discretion of the trial court. Wait v. Pierce (1926), 191 Wis. 202, 209 N. W. 475, 210 N. W. 822. It has long been held that while an appeal may be taken from a discretionary order, the matter will be reviewed solely to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion. If it is found that there was no abuse of discretion, the appeal will be dismissed. If there was an abuse of discretion, the order will be reversed. Jones v. Walker (1867), 22 Wis. *220; McCarville v. Boyle (1895), 89 Wis.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wait v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- State v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- McCarville v. BoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- National Distilling Co. v. SeidelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Jones v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bowen v. CONSTRUCTORS EQUIPMENT RENTAL COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Wengerd v. RinehartCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
- Ford Motor Company v. Bisanz Bros., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
- Ford Motor Co. v. Bisanz Bros.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1957
- Kornitz v. Commonwealth Land Title InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.