Legal Opinion

Makowski v. Ehlenbach

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1960PublishedCited by 58 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

1. Form of order. The order granting a new trial did not state that the damage awards were “excessive.” Thus, it did not literally specify the statutory ground upon which it was apparently based. Sec. 270.49 (2), Stats.; Boughton v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1959), 7 Wis. (2d) 618, 620, 97 N. W. (2d) 401. The only motions by defendants appear to have been based upon a claim that the damages were excessive, and the court orally stated that they were excessive. Plaintiffs have not relied here upon any deficiency in the form of the order, and concede that it was based on a finding…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Powers v. Allstate InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Bethke v. DuweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Blong v. Ed. Schuster & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Blaisdell v. Allstate InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

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

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. Savino Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  2. Fahrenberg v. TengelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Maurin v. HallWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Gilman v. City of SheboyganSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
  5. Wisconsin Central Railroad v. Taylor CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881

53 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