Legal Opinion

Betz v. Diamond Jim's Auto Sales

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided October 16, 2012No. 2012AP183PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFine, J.

¶ 1. This case comes to us because Randy L. Betz and Diamond Jim's Auto Sales settled Betz's lawsuit against Diamond Jim's without the knowledge of their respective lawyers. Betz's lawyers sought fee-shifting attorney's fees from Diamond Jim's pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11). The trial court rejected their claim in an order dated December 8, 2011. Although designated by the circuit court as "the final order of the court for the purposes of appeal," and the order also indicated that "no further orders are contemplated by the court," the circuit court entered an order on January 9, 2012,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Shands v. CastrovinciWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Rey Castillo, Carlos Abesamis, Lauro Malinas, Emetrio Noble, and Jerry Ramos v. Spiliada Maritime Corporation and Spiliada MvCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
  3. Bussian v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  5. American National Property & Casualty Co. v. NersesianCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2004

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Randy L. Betz v. Diamond Jim's Auto SalesWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Randy L. Betz v. Diamond Jim's Auto SalesWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API