Legal Opinion

Terbush v. Boyle

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1935PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The defendant, Boyle, set up that he was not guilty of any of the grievances alleged in the complaint at any time within two years before the commencement of this action, and that plaintiff’s action is barred under the provisions of secs. 330.15 and 330.21 (3), Stats. 1931. The motion to strike, which is in effect a demurrer and should have been so denominated, raises the question of whether or not plaintiff’s cause of action against Boyle was barred by the statute. The applicable statutes are as follows :

“330.15 Actions, time for commencing. The following actions must be commenced within the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Reading Co. v. KoonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Louisville, Evansville, & St. Louis Railroad v. ClarkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  3. George v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Siebert v. Jacob Dudenhoefer Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Stehn v. HayssenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Estate of Genrich v. OHIC Ins. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Miller v. LutherCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
  3. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Donald Christ v. Exxon Mobil CorporationWisconsin Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Schilling v. Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944

9 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