Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Prince Corporation v. James N. Vandenberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 2016No. 2014AP002295Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShirley S. Abrahamson, J.

¶ 58. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). Counsel for Vandenberg's co-tenants in common advised the court in a letter dated May 20, 2016, that the parties reached a settlement in the instant case. The letter asked that "the Court hold any opinion in this matter in abeyance pending circulation of final settlement documentation," and advised that " [a] formal stipulation and order for dismissal will be submitted to the Court in short order as soon as the parties finalize the documentation necessary to effectuate this settlement."

¶ 59. After the opinions in the instant case were…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Watts v. WattsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Prince v. BryantWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Mulder v. MittelstadtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
  5. Schmit v. KlumpyanCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003

7 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