Legal Opinion

Miller Saw-Trimmer Co. v. Cheshire

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1922PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberRY, J.

On behalf of the plaintiff the following errors are assigned:

1. The court erred in holding that there had been a failure by the plaintiff to exercise due diligence to discover the evidence forming the basis of . the present petition.

2. The court erred in holding that the new evidence is not such as would probably have changed the conclusions arrived at by the supreme court had such evidence been before it.

3. The court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion.

On behalf of the defendants it is urged that, the judgment of the circuit court having been affirmed by this court on appeal, it became…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Patten Paper Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Ean v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Wilson v. PlankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Dibbert v. Metropolitan Investment Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Birdsall v. FraenzelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Lock v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State ex rel. Zabel v. Municipal Court of Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Jolitz v. FintchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Belt Line Realty Co v. DickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Mickoleski v. BeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948

12 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