Legal Opinion

Gohr v. Beranek

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1954PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.

Appellant raises several questions on this appeal. If we find, however, that the trial court correctly-held the issue to be res judicata, the other questions will be immaterial.

It is argued that this action is not the same as Beranek v. Gohr, supra, because the prior action was to quiet title whereas this involves the foreclosure of a mortgage. We have consulted the cases and briefs in Beranek v. Gohr and find that the complaint there alleged the ownership in Carl Gohr, the defendant, of the $4,000 mortgage and his occupancy of the premises. The relief sought was a judgment requiring him “to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Werner v. RiemerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Cohan v. Associated Fur Farms, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Kuchenreuther v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. John T. Patzer v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System and State Department of AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  2. Leimert v. McCannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Lawrence Vandenplas and Barbara Vandenplas v. City of MuskegoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  4. Schmalz v. McKennaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Baumgarten v. BubolzCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981

3 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