Legal Opinion
Herbst v. Hansen
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided April 28, 1970No. 198PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion for summary judgment on the basis there are material facts in dispute ?
The discretionary nature of a trial court’s authority in the area of summary judgment was discussed in Zimmer v. Damn (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 627, 631, 162 N. W. 2d 626:
“We think sec. 270.635, Stats., providing for summary judgment, does not confer a right to summary judgment but rather confers on the trial court a discretionary power to grant summary judgment when it believes summary disposition of a case is called for. The language of this section provides that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Arthur v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Cal-Farm Insurance v. BoisserancCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1963
- National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. MacaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Hardscrabble Ski Area, Inc. v. First National Bank of Rice LakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
- Ceplina v. South Milwaukee School BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Pierce v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1981
- Belling v. HarnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Londre v. Continental Western InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.