Legal Opinion

Poehling v. La Crosse Plumbing Supply Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1964PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hallows, J..The gist of the defendant’s argument is the abatement suspended the suit for all other purposes and a motion for summary judgment could not be granted. In Truesdill v. Roach (1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 492, 105 N. W. (2d) 871, we stated if a plea in abatement is true when interposed it either defeats the pending suit or suspends the suit in which it is interposed except when such plea is made on the ground there is another action pending and such action is dismissed prior to the hearing on the plea. Winner v. Kuehn (1897), 97 Wis. 394, 72 N. W. 227. However, until the plea is determined…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Truesdill v. RoachWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Winner v. KuehnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. J.J. Andrews, Inc. v. MidlandCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1991
  2. Zobel v. FenendaelCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  3. Fond Du Lac Skyport, Inc. v. Moraine Airways, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Bottomley v. BottomleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API