Legal Opinion

Caygill v. Ipsen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1965PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

We conclude that the complaint improperly joins two separate causes of action in that they do not affect both parties who have been joined as defendants. They require different places of trial, and are not stated separately. We rely on sec. 263.04, Stats., which provides:

“Uniting causes of action. The plaintiff may unite in the same complaint several causes of action, whether they be such as were formerly denominated legal or equitable or both. But the causes of action so united must affect all the parties to the action and not require different places of trial, and must be stated separately.”

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Maddux v. DonaldsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Eramdjian v. Interstate Bakery Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  3. Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Weeks Pickle Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Meier v. HoltMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Murphy v. Taxicabs of Louisville, Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1959

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Tamminen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Augustine v. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Hartwig v. BitterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Olsen v. MooreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

42 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