Peck v. Meda-Care Ambulance Corp.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtFine, J.
There are two dispositive issues on this appeal: first, whether an attorney is per se liable to his or her client for violation of the rule that generally prohibits a lawyer from testifying for the client; and second, whether the forfeiture of attorney fees directed by the trial court was an appropriate exercise of judicial authority. The trial court answered these questions in the affirmative. We reverse. Additionally, the appellant contends that the respondents' position is frivolous and that, accordingly, he is entitled to "costs and reasonable attorney's fees on this appeal" pursuant to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Helmbrecht v. St. Paul InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
- In Matter of Estate of BilsieCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
- Walker v. BignellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
- Olfe v. GordonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Piaskoski & Associates v. RicciardiCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2004
- Cook v. Continental Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
- Heyden v. Safeco Title InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
- Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito America, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.