Legal Opinion

Coolidge v. Rueth

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1932PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtR.osenberry, C. J.

The first contention made by the defendants is that the opinion of the trial court and not the formal findings of fact reflects the true findings of fact. This contention, although it seems to be urged in perfect good faith, is in view of the record in this case a surprising one.

Sec. 270.33, Stats., requires the court upon the trial of a question of fact to give its decision in writing, in which the court shall state separately (a) the facts found; (b) the conclusions of law thereon. Sub. (2) of the section provides that the decision shall be prepared either from the court’s minutes or from…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Adams v. AdamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Davenport v. RichardsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844
  3. Sanford v. ThorpSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
  4. Boehm v. WermuthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Shupe v. JenksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Midwest Mutual Insurance v. NicolazziCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
  2. Will of Robinson v. RobinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Wallace v. MantheiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Estate of Onstad v. OnstadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Estate of Smith v. NewellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935

5 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