Fontaine v. Milwaukee County Expressway Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.
We must determine whether the following legend written on the notice of appeal was sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction over Myrtle Fontaine even though she was not otherwise served with process:
“Copy Rec’d Aug 19 1965 Roland J. Steinle, Sr. and Gregory Gramling, Jr. Attys. for Myrtle Fontaine by Gregory Gramling, Jr.”
The appellant urges that sec. 269.37, Stats., is applicable and that service on the attorneys was sufficient since the latter had previously appeared on behalf of Mrs. Fontaine. There is a flaw in this argument: Sec. 269.37 applies only when the attorney has…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Borgnis v. Falk Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Klump v. CybulskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Howard v. PrestonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- City of Madison v. TiedemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- State ex rel. City of Milwaukee v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Jones v. GerhardsteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Chevrolet Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- 519 CORP. v. Department of TransportationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- In Matter of Petition of Elec. Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
- Mared Industries, Inc. v. MansfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.