SUSKEY v. DAVIDOFF


2 Wis.2d 503 (1958)

SUSKEY, Appellant, vs. DAVIDOFF and another, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

January 7, 1958.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Roman H. Papka of Milwaukee.

For the respondent I. Z. Davidoff the cause was submitted on the brief of Wickhem, Borgelt, Skogstad & Powell, attorneys, and Harry F. Franke of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Robert I. Hiller there was a brief by Ray T. McCann, and oral argument by Richard A. McDermott, both of Milwaukee.


WINGERT, J.

The sole question for decision is whether the action is barred by statute of limitations. For present purposes it may be assumed that, as asserted by the plaintiff, the defendants wrongfully removed her gall bladder without her consent and without justification of any necessity or emergency, and that they gave her no advance intimation that they might do so.

1. On that assumption as to the facts (which...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases