Tilsen v. Rubin
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The language of the statute identifies the order which plaintiff seeks to obtain as one discretionary with the trial court. Accordingly, we should not reverse unless convinced that the court’s action constituted a clear abuse of discretion. The statute is a remedial one and must be construed liberally. Worthington P. & M. Corp. v. Northwestern Iron Co. (1922), 176 Wis. 35, 186 N. W. 156. The burden of establishing such abuse of discretion is on the appellant. He submits that his petition is sufficient under the statute in stating that the desired documents are in the defendant’s possession…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Northern Wisconsin Co-operative Tobacco Pool v. OlesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Northwestern Iron Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Hudson v. GraffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Ellinger v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
3Cited by6 opinions
- Culligan, Inc. v. RheaumeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Whanger v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Wilkins v. DurandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Wisconsin Fertilizer Asso. v. KarnsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Wisconsin Steel Treating & Blasting Co. v. DonlinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.