Legal Opinion · Dissent

Krolikowski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 1979No. 76-300Published

1DissentConnor T. Hansen, J.

I respectfully dissent because it appears to me that this court has retried this case rather than subject it to judicial review. In reviewing an order granting a new trial this court must look for reasons to sustain the trial court’s order. Loomans v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 38 Wis.2d 656, 662, 158 N.W.2d 318 (1968). Such an order should be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion. Hillstead v. Shaw, 34 Wis.2d 643, 648, 150 N.W.2d 313 (1967). In other words, the trial court has to be wrong about the evidence or the law. McCarthy v. Thompson, 256 Wis. 113, 40 N.W.2d 560 (1949). Recently,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Loomans v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Hillstead v. ShawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Schlag v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Larry Ex Rel. Kmiec v. Commercial Union InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  5. McCarthy v. ThompsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API