Legal Opinion

Erickson v. Clifton

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1953PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

In granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial the learned trial judge filed a memorandum by which it is established that he bore in mind the conditions which we have said must be fulfilled before a new trial may be granted because of newly discovered evidence. These conditions, as repeated by the trial court, appear in Miller Saw-Trimmer Co. v. Cheshire (1922), 177 Wis. 354, 189 N. W. 465; reaffirmed in Mickoleski v. Becker (1948), 252 Wis. 307, 311, 31 N. W. (2d) 508; and Estate of Teasdale (1953), 264 Wis. 1, 58 N. W. (2d) 404. They are:

1. The evidence must have come to the moving party’s…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Keeley v. Great Northern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Teasdale v. TeasdaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Beck v. WallmowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Wilson v. PlankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Loucheine v. StrouseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bear v. Kenosha CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. State v. Terrance J.W.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1996
  3. Zernia v. Capitol Court Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Combs v. PetersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Estate of Kemman v. PackardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

3 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