Legal Opinion

Gordon S. Stark & Co. v. Roets

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1958PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

“The summary-judgment procedure is not calculated to supplant the demurrer, or motion to make the pleadings more definite and certain, nor is it to be a trial on affidavits. McLoughlin v. Malnar (1941), 237 Wis. 492, 297 N. W. 370. Summary judgment should be granted only when it is perfectly plain that there is no substantial issue to be tried. Prime Mfg. Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp. (1938), 229 Wis. 348, 281 N. W. 697; Atlas Investment Co. v. Christ (1942), 240 Wis. 114, 2 N. W. (2d) 714. The summary-judgment statute (sec. 270.635, Stats.) is not a substitute for a regular trial nor does…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Prime Manufacturing Co. v. A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  2. McLoughlin v. MalnarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Parish v. Awschu Properties, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Atlas Investment Co. v. ChristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Batson v. NicholsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Federal Pants, Inc., & Harold Foonberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Daniel Stocking, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  2. Gullickson v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Dull v. CurranWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API