Legal Opinion

Motowski v. People's Dentists of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

We are constrained to hold that none of the provisions contained in the order of November 3d, as detailed above and from which the plaintiff attempted to *480appeal, are such as can now be passed upon by us under the statute regulating appeals to this court.

The only provision of sec. 3069, Stats., that could possibly authorize such review is sub. (1) thereof, reading as follows: “An order affecting a substantial right, made in any action, when- such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.” But no such order is here involved.

We cannot now…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Nickerson v. GlinesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  2. Raymond v. KesebergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Puhr v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  4. State ex rel. Schumacher v. MarkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Gill v. HermannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Latham v. Casey & King Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Perry v. PerkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Alexander v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  4. McIntyre v. CarrollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Medved v. BairdWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

3 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