Legal Opinion

Cram v. Bach

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1957Published

1Per curiam

(on motion for rehearing). In the brief of the respondent, Harold R. Cram, presented in support of his motion for rehearing, he contends that under sec. 256.08, Stats., and under the rule of State ex rel. Pardeeville Electric Light Co. v. Sachtjen (1944), 245 Wis. 26, 13 N. W. (2d) 538, the successor judge was entitled to make findings based upon evidence of record heard before the predecessor judge. He directs attention to the following statements of principles:

“In the absence of a statute to the contrary, as a general rule a successor judge may not render judgment in a case begun before his…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State Ex Rel. Pardeeville Electric Light Co. v. SachtjenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API