Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 2008No. 2005AP886Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 54. {concurring in part, dissenting in part). The lawsuit before *133the court arises from the design and construction of an addition to the home of Robert Stuart and Lin Farquhar-Stuart (the Stuarts). Two types of claims were tried to a jury: (1) violation of Wisconsin Administrative Code § ATCP 110.02(11) (Oct. 2004)1 (a provision of the Home Improvement Practices Act or HIPA) based on misrepresentation and (2) common law negligence in the design and construction of the addition. The Stuarts prevailed on both types of claims and the jury allocated damages between those claims.

¶ 55. Before us…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Kaloti Enterprises, Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Wurtz v. FleischmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1998

25 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