Hintz v. Zion Evangelical United Brethren Church
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Ever since Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp. (1938), 229 Wis. 348, 281 N. W. 697, we have invariably followed the rule that the summary-judgment statute should be applied only where it is perfectly plain that there is no substantial issue of fact to be tried. The statute does not authorize the trial of contested *443issues on affidavits. No more does it authorize trial of such issues on adverse examinations. On motions for summary judgment the court merely decides whether the case presents facts to be tried by a jury. Prime Mfg. Co. Case, supra, page 355.
Plaintiffs’ actions are grounded…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Prime Manufacturing Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church of the ReformationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
- Lawver v. Joint District No. 1Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Harnett v. St. Mary's CongregationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Meyers v. St. Bernard's CongregationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic ChurchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Laborers & Hod Carriers Union, Local No. 341 v. GroothuisAlaska Supreme Court · 1972
- Hahn v. Walworth CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Wojtanowski v. St. Josaphat's CongregationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Watts v. Seward School BoardAlaska Supreme Court · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.