Carney-Rutter Agency, Inc. v. Central Office Buildings, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
With respect to this appeal, respondent urges that it was proper for the trial court to have denied Mitchell’s application for a summary judgment because there are disputed questions of fact. In addition to the verified complaint and answer, the trial court had before it the adverse examinations of Messrs. Carney and Rutter, various affidavits, and considerable documenfary evidence, such as deeds of conveyance and letters passing between the parties. There are some disputed questions of fact, it is true, but these are entirely immaterial to the questions of law presented and therefore do not…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Bostwick v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Herbst v. LoweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Mamlock v. FairbanksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
- Fuller v. Madison Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
- Des Jardin v. Town of GreenfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State Bank of La Crosse v. ElsenCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
- Deminsky v. Arlington Plastics MacHineryWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- De Bonville v. Travelers Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Nauga, Inc. v. Westel Milwaukee Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
- Hafemann v. KorinekWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.