Legal Opinion

Caryl v. Buchmann

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1922PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

The circuit court properly denied the motion for a new trial. This court must assume as the record stands that the facts stated by the trial judge as to his being at all times within hearing of counsel during the argument to the jury are true. They are only indirectly or inferentially challenged by affidavits on behalf of the defendant. *244Nothing contained in such affidavits absolutely denies the facts stated by the trial judge. So the facts are that the trial judge at all times was within hearing of counsel arguing and that he ruled upon all objections made. Without any criticism of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mulcairns v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Smith v. SherwoodWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Heucke v. Milwaukee City RailwayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Kersten v. WeichmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Laue v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Knipfer v. ShawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Berrafato v. ExnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Snodgrass v. Charleston NuGrape Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Basile v. FathWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Schultz v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951

3 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