Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lee v. GEICO Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided September 29, 2009No. 2008AP3125Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

¶ 41. KESSLER, J.

{concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur with the majority's reversal of the sanctions imposed against GEICO for filing its postverdict motion in this case. However, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion upholding sanctions against GEICO for violation of the scheduling order. It is undisputed, as the majority points out, that not only did Valarie Lee fail during the mediation to object to having a corporate representative from GEICO appear by telephone, she also completed the *717mediation on that day knowing that GEICO's representative was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. NdinaWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. English-LancasterCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API