Legal Opinion · Dissent

Walsh v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1943Published

1DissentFairchild, J.

{dissenting'). I believe that the legislature did not intend by sec. 269.57 (1), Stats., to permit indiscriminate investigation of all the evidence that a party may discover or come into possession of after a cause of action has materialized. It seems to me that what was wanted will be completely taken care of if we interpret the words “action or special proceeding” to mean the lawful demand of one’s rig'ht setting forth the facts constituting a'Cause oí action. The document to be inspected must bear a direct relation to the cause of action as well as not to be a privileged communication.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Northern Wisconsin Co-operative Tobacco Pool v. OlesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Northwestern Iron Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Cespuglio v. CespuglioWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API