Goldenberg v. Daane
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
1. Sufficiency of the form of the order. “No order granting a new trial in the interest of justice shall be valid or effective, unless the reasons that prompted the court to make such order are set forth in detail therein.”
The order in this case does not set forth reasons, but does recite the filing of a written decision “wherein the court sets forth its reasons for its decision that the motions of the plaintiffs for new trial in the interest of justice must be granted.”
“This court has held in Alexander v. Meyers (1952), 261 Wis. 384, 386, 52 N. W. (2d) 881, and Guptill v. Roemer (1955), 269…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Patterson v. JensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
- Guptill v. RoemerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Alexander v. MeyersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Bolssen v. HeenanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Coenen v. Van HandelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Geis v. HirthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Voigt v. VoigtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Bunkfeldt v. Country Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Flippin v. TurlockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.