Patrykus v. Fisher
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
Movants’ first contention is that sec. 274.11, Stats., as it stood prior to amendment by rule of this court required notice to be served on all adverse parties whether they appeared in the action or not and that this was not done; that the rule of this court enacted July 1, 1945, in the exercise of its rule-making power and amending the statute by inserting the words “who appeared in the action or proceeding” establishes a rule of substantive law and is in excess of the powers of the court. It is conceded that the notice of appeal was properly served if the statute as amended by rule of court…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kring v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Pawlowski v. EskofskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Cyrowski v. WojcikMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- Levy v. BirnscheinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- St. Joseph's Hospital of Franciscan Sisters v. Maternity Hospital & Dispensary Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re the Complaint Against Judge GradyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
- In Re the Complaint Against Judge GradyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984