1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 30 Wis.2d
  5. 30 Wis.2d 388 (1966)
 

SHURPIT v. BRAH

30 Wis.2d 388 (1966)

SHURPIT, Appellant, v. BRAH, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 12, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellant there was a brief by William F. Hayes and Hayes & Priebe, all of Ripon, attorneys, and Earl A. Charlton and Charlton, Yanisch & Ritchay, all of Milwaukee, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. William F. Hayes and Mr. Earl A. Charlton.

For the respondent there was a brief by Wickham, Borgelt, Skogstad & Powell, attorneys, and Norman C. Skogstad and Thomas N. Klug of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Norman C. Skogstad.

BEILFUSS, J.

The plaintiff does not contend that the verdict is contrary to the evidence but does argue that the trial court committed several prejudicial procedural errors and that he is entitled to a new trial.

The errors alleged and relied upon in this appeal are:

(1) That the trial court erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to offer evidence of defendant's negligence during and after the first surgery...

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