Legal Opinion

Brown v. Gaulke

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.

1. Counsel concede that the order extending time to dispose of motions after verdict was null and Void because it set forth no facts showing cause for such extension within the rule stated in Borowics v. Hamann, 189 Wis. 212, 218, 207 N. W. 426, 428.

2. Counsel request that the court pass upon the merits of the questions raised by the motions after verdict. This cannot be done. The failure to decide the motions within the time fixed by sec. 270.49 of the Statutes resulted in a constructive denial of the motions pending at the expiration of the sixty-day period. An order denying the motion for…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Borowicz v. HamannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Kurath v. Gove Automobile Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Beck v. WallmowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Urban v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Lingelbach v. CarriveauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Hogan v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Brown v. GaulkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

1 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