Borowicz v. Hamann
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Rósenberry, J.
We shall not make a restatement of the matters covered in the former opinion, to which reference is hereby made, but will state such additional facts as are necessary to a consideration of the questions presented for review.
The first contention of the plaintiffs here is that, this being an action at law, the court erred in reducing the damages fixed by the jury and in directing an absolute judgment for the amount so fixed by the court, the contention being that the plaintiffs are thus deprived of the right of trial by jury. In this contention plaintiffs are undoubtedly right.…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Rao v. WMA Securities, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2008
- Beck v. WallmowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Lingelbach v. CarriveauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Board of Com'rs. v. Casper Nat. BankWyoming Supreme Court · 1939
- Koepke v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.