Dziengel v. Dziengel
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.
Counsel for defendant-appellant have failed m the preparation of their brief and appendix to comply with several rules of the court. Their failure has not aided us in our study of their appeal. 'Although there are over 300 pages in the bill of exceptions their statement of facts consists of but two pages, in which no reference is made to the pages of the appendix for the statements of fact made, Supreme Court Rule 6 (3). The appendix does not contain the opinion of the trial court, Rule 6 (5) (a). No part of the findings is printed in the appendix, Rule 6 (5) (b). What is offered in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Peterson Cutting Die Co. v. Bach Sales Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
3Cited by6 opinions
- Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Dutcher v. Phoenix InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Lindahl v. LindahlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- State v. NielsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2011
- Lindahl v. LindahlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.