John E. Martin

This case involved a challenge to the will of a testatrix executed in January 1960, with contestants alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by beneficiaries Harold and Sylvia Lena. The trial court upheld the will, finding proper execution, sufficient capacity, and insufficient proof of undue influence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by the greater weight of the evidence, including testimony from witnesses who observed the testatrix near the time of execution showing she was rational and not influenced, while the medical expert's opinion allowed for possible competence. The court emphasized that the burden was on the challengers to prove incapacity and undue influence by clear and convincing evidence, and credibility determinations rest with the trial court.

family lawproperty

The case involved a plaintiff suing police officers for false arrest and excessive force during an arrest for reckless driving after the officers observed erratic driving and pursued the vehicle. The trial court instructed the jury only on false arrest and related matters, resulting in a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed various jury instructions and the failure to submit excessive force to the jury. The court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the plaintiff had waived any right to a jury determination on excessive force by failing to request instructions on the issue, that other alleged errors in the instructions were either not erroneous or not prejudicial, and that the evidence supported the outcome reached.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Hintz v. Mielke, a five-year-old boy was injured in a January 1958 car accident at an icy, uncontrolled intersection near a school, leading his parents to sue the driver for negligence in lookout, speed, management and control, and yielding the right of way, and to claim resulting permanent brain damage. The jury found the driver not negligent and determined that any brain condition pre-existed the accident and was not caused or aggravated by it. The trial court upheld these findings based on the driver's testimony that the boy stepped into the path suddenly, evidence of slow speed and quick stopping on ice, and medical experts' opinions attributing the condition to long-standing developmental causes rather than the incident. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that credible evidence supported the jury's conclusions and that any instructional errors were not prejudicial.

torts & liability

The case involved Milwaukee Western Bank suing its former part-time director and executive committee member, Lienemann, for fraud after he received 100 shares of stock in Mercury Engineering Corporation in exchange for arranging a $100,000 line of credit from the bank, investing his own funds, and providing financial services. The bank claimed this arrangement constituted fraud, but the court addressed whether the claim was timely under Wisconsin's six-year statute of limitations for fraud actions, which begins upon discovery of the facts constituting the fraud. The trial court found that bank officers had actual knowledge by 1950 of Lienemann's receipt of stock for his services, including obtaining the loan, and that diligent inquiry would have revealed any fraud well before December 1952. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bank's cause of action accrued earlier based on this information and was therefore barred when suit was filed in 1958.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a 1959 car collision in Madison, Wisconsin, where Little's eastbound vehicle struck Wendel's northbound car in the intersection, causing Wendel neck and spine injuries described as whiplash. Wendel sued for damages, and the jury awarded compensation while finding him contributorily negligent and comparing fault; the trial court later changed the negligence answers as a matter of law to eliminate Wendel's fault, struck the comparison question, and upheld the damage award. On appeal, Wendel challenged the damages as inadequate and the verdict changes, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported directing a finding of no contributory negligence and that the jury's damage determination, bolstered by the trial court's observations, did not require a new trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a car accident at an intersection where appellant Van Wie, driving a truck towing another vehicle, collided with respondent Hill's stationary car after attempting a left turn. The jury found Van Wie causally negligent in managing and controlling his truck and in traveling at excessive speed, which forfeited his statutory right of way, and apportioned 51% of the causal negligence to him and 49% to Hill. The trial court entered judgment accordingly, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that credible evidence, including photographs, witness testimony, and the positions of the vehicles, supported the jury's findings on negligence, speed, and apportionment, and that any issues regarding jury instructions or verdict form were either waived or without merit.

torts & liability