Legal Opinion

Balzer v. Weisensel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1951PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.

Counsel for appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because the findings upon which it is based are contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

The trial court found that the stipulation did not contemplate the signature of the defendant and was complete without it.

Counsel contends that there being upon the face of the document language that the stipulation was entered into by the parties and their attorneys and a line for the defendant’s signature, it shows conclusively that the stipulation was to be binding only when signed by the parties. It is urged that plaintiffs have not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Grueneberg v. BrieseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Shequin v. ShequinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
  3. City of Milwaukee v. City of West AllisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. John D. Allison, Bayfield Electric Cooperative, Robert E. Cadwell v. Ticor Title Insurance Company, John D. Allison, Paul R. Phillips, Mary B. Phillips v. Ticor Title Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  2. Rushing v. GarrettDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
  3. Allison v. Ticor Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
  4. Krueger v. Herman Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  5. D & D Carpentry, Inc. v. U.S. BancorpCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2010

1 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