Timothy Brown

The case concerned whether the City of Wauwatosa had statutory authority to enact an ordinance and resolution creating a commercial refuse collection district that charged fees for properties including multi-unit dwellings over four units, while continuing free collection for residential properties and requiring residents to place containers at the curb. The trial court ruled the measures illegal and unconstitutional, but the appellate court reversed. The court held that secs. 66.049 and 66.60(16)(a), Stats., expressly authorize cities to classify properties for refuse services, create districts, and use methods such as special charges or taxes to recover costs. It further concluded that the classification did not violate equal protection because it treated all properties within each defined class alike and had a rational basis.

propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether a property owner complied with Wis. Stat. § 66.05(3) by serving and later filing a summons and complaint to challenge a municipal building inspector's order to raze an allegedly dilapidated structure. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that this procedure did not satisfy the statute, which requires an affected person to apply to the circuit court for a restraining order within 30 days, and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal on demurrer. The majority reasoned that the statute's exclusive remedy demands strict compliance with its time limits and procedures, interpreting an "application for an order" as a motion under ch. 269 rather than the commencement of an ordinary action. The court emphasized that the statutory framework is designed to allow swift municipal action against unsafe buildings while providing a narrow, expedited path for judicial review. A dissent argued that a summons and complaint demanding the contemplated relief could constitute a valid application under the statute.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether Arthur Duvick qualified as an employee of Orbeck Bros., Inc., a Wisconsin tavern corporation, for purposes of workers' compensation after he and associates purchased nearly all of the corporation's stock and he took over management of the business. Duvick was injured while stacking beer cases at the tavern in 1959. The Industrial Commission found that Duvick was self-employed rather than an employee because he effectively owned the business and exercised complete control over his own work, and therefore denied benefits. The circuit court reversed, holding that a corporate resolution appointing Duvick as liquor-license agent created an express contract of hire. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Commission's order, reasoning that findings of near-total stock ownership and full authority over employment were supported by the record and, under established precedent, precluded an employer-employee relationship as a matter of law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1959 highway collision in which a semi-truck driven by defendant Robert Oman attempted to pass a house trailer operated by plaintiff Robert Girtz, resulting in injuries to both Robert and his passenger Gertrude Girtz. The plaintiffs sued Oman and related parties for negligence, and the jury awarded damages including $4,000 for Robert's lost earnings, finding Oman 90 percent causally negligent. On appeal the court held that the lost-earnings award lacked evidentiary support because the record contained no proof that the minor injuries prevented Robert from working. The court also upheld the trial judge's allowance of mid-trial amendments to the complaints alleging additional negligence theories and affirmed the remaining awards after reducing Robert's judgment by $4,000. The negligence findings were sustained on the basis that the jury could reasonably credit testimony that either the truck's side mirror struck the trailer or that air currents from the close pass caused the trailer to weave into the truck.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether a petition to vacate a portion of Cleora Drive under Wis. Stat. sec. 66.296(1) was valid, specifically whether signatures from owners along a disconnected segment of the drive located about 1,000 feet away across another lot had to be included in the required frontage calculation. The court held that the petition was sufficient and the city council's resolution vacating the street segment between Burton and Frederick streets was valid. It reasoned that a 'street' under the statute means a continuous public way, so the separated segments were distinct streets and only frontage on the connected portion within 2,650 feet needed to be considered. The court noted that an official map showing a possible future connection did not establish the segments as one street, and the owners' own 1962 plat had not provided for such a link. Summary judgment for the respondents was affirmed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the state seeking to recover $3,400 in showman's license fees from the operator of a permanent amusement park for its mechanical rides over nine years under Wis. Stat. sec. 129.14. The trial court sustained a demurrer, finding the statute unconstitutionally vague, but the supreme court affirmed dismissal of the action on other grounds. The court interpreted the statute, based on its text requiring applications to detail travel plans, its legislative history distinguishing mobile from fixed entertainments, and differing regulatory schemes, as applying only to traveling shows and not to stationary amusement parks regulated by counties. The court declined to address constitutionality since the interpretive issue resolved the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether sec. 40.035, Stats., which mandated that all territory in the state be included in school districts operating high schools after June 30, 1962, impliedly repealed sec. 40.15, which provided a procedure for petitioning a referendum election to dissolve union high-school districts. The court decided that sec. 40.15 was impliedly repealed and affirmed the dismissal of the petition for a writ of mandamus to compel such an election. The core reasoning was that the statutes were manifestly inconsistent and repugnant, as the purpose of sec. 40.15 was to allow common school districts to operate independently without high schools, while sec. 40.035 prohibited any district from existing without one; reorganization after the mandate was possible only if resulting districts still operated high schools.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a challenge to condemnation proceedings in which the State Highway Commission acquired the appellant's property in Milwaukee through a city board acting as its agent under ch. 84, Stats. The appellant argued that the proceedings were invalid because necessity was not determined by a jury as required by the Wisconsin Constitution for municipal takings, that prior negotiations were insufficient, and that the tender of the award was improper; he also contended that admitting copies of negotiation letters was reversible error under the best-evidence rule. The court held the proceedings valid, finding that the constitutional jury requirement did not apply because the taking was by the state commission rather than a municipality, that substantial evidence showed proper negotiations and a compliant tender naming the owner and lienholders, and that admission of the copies was within the trial court's discretion given the unavailability of originals and lack of authenticity dispute. The court therefore affirmed the order upholding the condemnation.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over priority of interests in poultry racks attached to trucks, pitting Ralston Purina's chattel mortgage against Toycen Motors and GMAC's conditional sale contracts and possible title by accession. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court held that substantial issues of material fact remained, including whether the racks could be detached without injury to the trucks, the parties' intentions regarding transfer or retention of title when the racks were installed, and whether Ralston had notice of any prior interests. Affidavits provided conflicting inferences on these points and lacked sufficient evidentiary detail, precluding summary judgment under Wisconsin law.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a car accident at an intersection in Wisconsin where plaintiff Carol Ann Smith was injured as a passenger in the Thiede vehicle, which collided with the Foss vehicle. The jury found that someone other than the plaintiff had been driving the Thiede car and that the Foss driver was not negligent. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that credible evidence supported the jury's finding on the driver's identity despite conflicting testimony, that evidentiary rulings and counsel's references to a prior settlement did not require a new trial, and that other asserted errors did not warrant reversal. The court also rejected challenges based on a release agreement and claims of negligence as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a rear-end collision in which defendant Olson's car struck plaintiff Pollack's vehicle after both his foot brake and hand brake unexpectedly failed at an intersection controlled by traffic lights. The court affirmed the jury's verdict that Olson was not negligent. The core reasoning was that a sudden, unforeseen brake failure can serve as a legal excuse for a technical violation of the state statute requiring adequate dual braking systems on motor vehicles, so the question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury rather than resolved as a matter of law; the court also held that an improper communication between a bailiff and a juror caused no prejudice requiring a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a claim by appellant Mrs. Schroeder against the estate of Mr. Voss seeking compensation on a quantum meruit basis for housekeeping, companionship, and nursing services she had provided to the decedent after responding to his newspaper advertisement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding her $30 per week for the two years preceding Voss's death, based on evidence that the services were performed at his request, a presumption of expected compensation arose due to the lack of any familial relationship, and testimony indicated he intended to pay her. Recovery for earlier periods was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under sec. 330.21(5), Stats., and an estoppel argument to extend the period was rejected because it had not been pleaded or raised at trial. The court also upheld the measure of recovery as the reasonable value of the combined services without separate itemization for nursing duties, finding the award supported by wage evidence from the Wisconsin Employment Service.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the boundaries of school districts in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, in which certain electors petitioned to detach the former Mosel school district from the Howard’s Grove school district and attach it to the Sheboygan school district. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction ordered the detachment and attachment after a hearing, and opponents appealed the order to the circuit court. The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing the appeal, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that review under the statute is limited to whether the Superintendent acted within jurisdiction or discretionary authority, because alteration of school district boundaries is a question of legislative policy outside judicial review under separation of powers principles, and the record showed no constitutional violations such as denial of due process or equal protection.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved consolidated lawsuits between California Wine Association and several Wisconsin liquor distributors (the Peckarsky Companies) over exclusive distributorship contracts for wines and brandies, with the Association seeking payment for merchandise and the distributors counterclaiming for damages due to termination of exclusivity. The trial court found that the Association had wrongfully terminated the contracts and awarded damages to the distributors based on findings about sales history, a 60-day reasonable notice period, and other calculations, which were offset against amounts owed in some actions. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, including the damage awards, interest running 45 days after receipt of goods, and denial of costs to either party. The core reasoning rested on the existence of implied contracts from long-standing dealings, factual determinations that termination breached those agreements, and application of contract principles for reasonable notice and damages measurement.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between lot owners in a lakeside subdivision over access routes to Lake Ellen shown on a recorded plat. The plaintiffs sought to compel removal of obstructions like fences placed by defendants on the platted roadways. The trial court found no public acceptance of the plat and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against the town but reversed as to the individual defendants, holding that while there were private easements by estoppel granted via the deeds and plat, issues of whether those easements were extinguished by adverse possession or abandonment required a new trial.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned the Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare's attempt to recover a patient's institutional maintenance costs under a health insurance policy originally issued by Central Standard Life Insurance Company. The court addressed whether a policy exclusion for conditional liabilities barred recovery given statutory provisions allowing collection from the patient's relatives, and whether Central Standard remained liable after transferring its policies to North American Insurance Company. It held that the exclusion did not apply because the patient's liability was absolute under the statute and not conditional on relatives' ability to pay. The court further determined that the transfer agreement constituted an assumption contract rather than reinsurance, which the policyholder had accepted, thereby releasing Central Standard from liability while upholding the judgment against North American.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved a truck driver, Harry Mustas, who was injured after slipping on ice inside a building under construction at a shopping center while delivering sand as an employee of a subcontractor. Mustas sued the general contractor, Inland Construction, under Wisconsin's safe-place statute, raising issues about his status on the premises, comparative negligence, whether other subcontractors maintained a safe place of employment, potential indemnity claims, and the amount of damages. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Mustas was not a trespasser as a matter of law but was instead a frequenter entitled to protection under the statute. The court affirmed the judgment in most respects but reversed for a new trial limited to the comparison of causal negligence between Mustas and Inland and to the amount of damages for pain, suffering, and related harms, finding that the original determinations on those issues could not stand.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This case involved an insurance company seeking repayment of advances made to an agent, Balistrieri, under a contract that required him to repay the excess if he competed by writing insurance in any area where the company operated within a set time after leaving. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the agent, holding that the repayment provision functioned as a restrictive covenant subject to Wis. Stat. 103.465. The court reasoned that although the contract did not explicitly bar competition, the penalty of repayment for competing imposed an unreasonable restraint because the territorial scope covered the entire United States while the agent's work had been limited to one county, making the covenant void in full. The decision followed precedents treating such provisions as unenforceable when they exceed what is reasonably necessary to protect the employer.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved several plaintiffs, including minors and adults, suing the proprietors of a public rollerskating rink for assault after the defendants refused admission to one minor on multiple occasions, ordered an adult plaintiff out of the rink, and had police remove him, allegedly causing apprehension of harmful contact along with resulting pain, humiliation, and mental suffering. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the amended complaint, concluding it failed to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the pleadings omitted essential elements of assault such as intent to cause bodily harm, unlawful or threatening conduct, and sufficient proximity to justify fear of immediate harm, relying instead on mere legal conclusions. The court further noted that after prior opportunities to amend, the deficiencies could not be cured by inference or liberal construction.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether alimony payments to the former wife under a divorce judgment and stipulation would continue after the ex-husband's death. The court held that such payments cease upon the husband's death unless the parties expressly agreed otherwise, and it affirmed the judgment denying continuation. The stipulation and judgment lacked any explicit language providing for post-death payments or a trust securing alimony for the wife's lifetime, distinguishing it from the precedent in Estate of Traver. Surrounding circumstances, including the parties' ages, property values, and later petitions that did not address continuation after death, also failed to demonstrate an intent for alimony to extend beyond the husband's lifetime.

family law