Legal Opinion

Fouse v. Persons

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1977No. 75-33PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

The trial court, as the statute authorizes, 1 set aside the jury verdict “in the interest of justice.” As the statute requires, 2 the trial court stated its reasons for setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial as follows:

“[T]he jury failed to follow the Court’s instructions in its answers to the damage questions, that the verdict is inconsistent, that the damages awarded are inadequate . . . and that the verdict is perverse. The Court further concludes that perversity permeates the entire verdict.”

In setting aside a jury verdict and ordering a new trial, a trial court has to steer…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Johnson v. HeintzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Butzow v. Wausau Memorial HospitalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Selleck v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Sell v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Lievrouw v. RothCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990
  2. Becker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
  3. Edwards v. SislerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Pieper v. Neuendorf Transportation Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Sentell v. HigbyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1978

6 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