Legal Opinion

Nothem v. Berenschot

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1958PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWingert, J.

Berenschot appealed from the entire judgment, including that part dismissing his cross complaint against Schmechel for contribution. Schmechel does not contend that the bill of exceptions was not timely served on him. The controversy between Berenschot and Schmechel as to the former’s right to have contribution from Schmechel is therefore before us on the merits, and to dispose of it we must consider the bill of exceptions, whether or not it was properly served on plaintiff.

Since the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions must thus be considered, and clearly supports the whole of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Strnad v. Co-Operative Insurance MutualWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Blom v. KumbierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Henschel v. Rural Mutual Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Vonasek v. Hirsch and Stevens, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Seifert v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Dutcher v. Phoenix InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Widuk v. John Oster Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962

3 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