Legal Opinion
McGovern v. Eckhart
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided November 5, 1929PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.
Respondent Eckhart elected to demur to the amended third cause of action rather than to have resorted to what would seem the much more orderly and appropriate procedure of a motion to have the complaint made more definite and certain. Simpson v. Cornish, 196 Wis. 125, 133, 218 N. W. 193; McIntyre v. Carroll, 193 Wis. 382, 387, 214 N. W. 366; Lawver v. Lynch, 191 Wis. 99, 101, 210 N. W. 410.
We find great difficulty in determining from the amended third cause in this complaint as it appears in the record, just what allegations, found in the first and second causes of action, are intended to be…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Ellison v. Georgia RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Car Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Morehouse v. City of EverettWashington Supreme Court · 1926
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Strazzulla v. HendrickSupreme Court of Florida · 1965
- Reamer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- England v. Hospital of the Good SamaritanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Blackwell's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1956
- Univest Corp. v. General Split Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1989
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.