Graff v. Roop
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
On this appeal the appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial in the mandamus action on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, and in any event this court should take jurisdiction under sec. 251.09, Stats., because the question of whether he was entitled to a pension has not been fully litigated. Appellant also argues that the defendants had no authority to refuse to honor the warrants; that the determination of the pension board was conclusive upon the trial court, and that his heart condition was a disease due to his occupation. These last three issues are not properly before us on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Guptill v. RoemerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Ferry v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Estate of EannelliWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- DeKeyser v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Teasdale v. TeasdaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. WatkinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
- Kablitz v. HoeftWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Cudahy v. Department of RevenueWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Monahan v. Department of TaxationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Hein v. TorgesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.