Bischoff v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
Does the judgment in the Cudahy Case bar the plaintiffs claim in this action?
We conclude that the issues that the plaintiff herein seeks to have adjudicated were argued, considered, and determined in the Cudahy Case, and are now barred by the doctrine of res judicata as the result of the earlier judgment.
The first case was brought by the trustee to determine whether the appointment of Helen Bischoff was legally effective in view of the partial release previously execüt- ed by Mrs. Hoyt. This was a request for a declaration of the rights of the parties concerned and for a delineation of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Keplin v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Wentworth v. Racine CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- McCourt v. AlgiersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Stone v. StoneMichigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Gohr v. BeranekWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gregory v. ChehiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Anchor Savings & Loan Ass'n v. WeekWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Gregory v. ChehiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Hammes v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977