Legal Opinion
Riegleman v. Krieg
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided March 17, 2004No. 03-1826PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, EJ.
¶ 1. Eric J. Krieg and the law firm of Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Reinhardt & Bloch, S.C. (the Warshafsky law firm) appeal from a judgment of the circuit court denying their summary judgment motion and holding, after a two-day trial, that Krieg's chiroprator, Faul D. Riegleman, D.C., was entitled to payment for his medical services. The court determined that Riegleman met his burden of proof that the medical expenses incurred by Krieg as a result of treatment provided by Riegleman were reasonable and necessary. The court also determined that the Warshafsky law firm entered into…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Romero v. EarlNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
- Berkowitz v. HaigoodNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1992
- Matter of HarrisUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1985
- Policemen's Annuity & Benefit v. City of Milw.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
- Matter of RawsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Coleman v. McCaughtryWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- Accident & Injury Medical Specialists, P.C. v. MintzSupreme Court of Colorado · 2012
- Yorgan v. DurkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- Marino v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2007
- WSBU v. Joel BrennanWisconsin Supreme Court · 2020
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.