Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Groshek v. TREWIN

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 2010No. 2008AP787Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.

¶ 34. {concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with those parts of the majority opinion that conclude that the attorney breached his fiduciary duty and that rescission is therefore warranted.

¶ 35. I dissent from those parts of the majority opinion (including Part III) that conclude that punitive damages are not available in the instant case. I conclude, as did the circuit court, that punitive damages are available in the instant case. I would therefore remand this case to the circuit court to restore the judgment originally entered for punitive damages in the amount of $38,200.

¶…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. CookWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Barry v. EdmundsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  3. Management Computer Services, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. SerioMississippi Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Deanna L. Beard, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Flying J, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee, and Richard KroutCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2001

24 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