Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Schwigel v. Kohlmann

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided April 17, 2002No. 01-1918Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnderson, J.

¶ 28. (concurring in part; dissenting in part). I differ with the majority's conclusion that the trial court engaged in "rank speculation," Majority at ¶ 19, when it determined that the jury's award of punitive damages was supported by the compensatory damages awarded for conversion. As I understand the majority's position, the punitive damages award must be reversed because it may be based, in part, on the jury being instructed that it may take into consideration the "actual damage" incurred by Schwi-gel.1 The reversal of the punitive damages award and *846remand for a new trial on punitive…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fahrenberg v. TengelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Tucker v. MarcusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Lutz v. Shelby Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Malco, Inc. v. Midwest Aluminum Sales, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Reyes v. Greatway Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1999

2 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