Legal Opinion

Matthew v. American Family Mutual Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1972No. 72PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

In many cases we have stated that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where the material facts are in dispute or where the undisputed facts permit inconsistent inferences as to necessary ultimate facts. We have even said that a trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, need not in all cases decide questions of law upon a motion for summary judgment. While the trial court is not required to decide a question of law upon a motion for summary judgment in all cases, without doubt a trial court can and should grant a motion for summary judgment in those instances…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Hardscrabble Ski Area, Inc. v. First National Bank of Rice LakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Zimmer v. DaunWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Sambs v. NowakWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Goff v. Massachusetts Protective Asso., Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Town Bank v. City Real Estate Development, LLCWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Dairyland Equipment Leasing, Inc. v. BohenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Schlosser v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Federal Deposit Insurance v. First Mortgage InvestorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. MussallemWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980

17 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