Legal Opinion

Ter Maat v. Barnett

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided May 22, 1990No. 89-1777PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.

This appeal involves the application of sec. 815.24, Stats., governing the right of an officer to require security for the execution of a judgment. Ronald J. Forslin appeals from an order dismissing his petition for an order directing the Winnebago County Sheriffs Department to waive its requirement of an indemnity bond for the execution of a judgment. The plain meaning of sec. 815.24 requires "reasonable doubt" to be established before security may be required. Because we conclude that reasonable doubt was not established in this case, we reverse this case and remand it to the circuit court.

F…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gross v. HoffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Wirth v. EhlyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Grace v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  5. Lechner v. ScharrerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1988

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. V.J.H. v. C.A.B.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  2. State Ex Rel. VJH v. CABCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API