Mark McNally v. Capital Cartage, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Dissent
ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. (dissenting).
¶ 57 While the court would reverse and conclude that no commission is owed as a matter of law, I would reverse and remand for trial. I conclude that it is error for this court, under these facts, to determine as a matter of law that no commission could be due because, in so doing, the court is acting as fact finder and is usurping the role of the jury.
¶ 58 Competing inferences and conflicting evidence exist in the record as to whether the transition services condition in the offer to purchase would constitute a "substantial variance" from the listing…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Amjad T. Tufail v. Midwest Hospitality, LLCWisconsin Supreme Court · 2013
- Physicians Plus Insurance v. Midwest Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
- Peter M. Chalik & Associates v. HermesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
- Libowitz v. Lake Nursing Home, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Kleven v. Cities Service Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.