1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 108 Wis.2d
  5. 108 Wis.2d 143 (1982)
 

ODDSEN v. BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COM'RS

Nos. 80-1726, 81-684.

108 Wis.2d 143 (1982)

321 N.W.2d 161

Timothy J. ODDSEN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS FOR the CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Defendant-Appellant. IN the MATTER OF the APPEAL OF Timothy J. ODDSEN; Timothy J. ODDSEN, Petitioner-Respondent-Petitioner, v. BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS FOR the CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Defendant-Appellant. Gail A. QUADE, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Defendant-Respondent. STATE EX REL. Gail QUADE, Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, v. BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided July 2, 1982.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the plaintiff-petitioner there were briefs by Bruce B. Jacobson and Piano, Duffy & Jacobson, attorneys, of Milwaukee, and Charles J. Rainey, of River Hills, of counsel, and oral argument by Bruce B. Jacobson. [Case No. 80-1726.]

For the defendant-appellant the cause was argued by Rudolph M. Konrad, assistant city attorney, with whom on the brief was James B. Brennan, city attorney. [Case No. 80-1726.]

For the plaintiff-petitioner there were briefs by Kenneth J. Murray, Richard D. Moake and Murray & Moake, S.C., attorneys, of Milwaukee, and Laurie Eggert, of Madison, of counsel, and oral argument by Laurie Eggert and Kenneth J. Murray. [Case No. 81-684.]

For the defendant-respondent the cause was argued by Rudolph M. Konrad, assistant city attorney, with whom on the brief was James B. Brennan, city attorney. [Case No. 81-684.]

Reversing and remanding 103 Wis.2d 689, 309 N.W.2d 889 [Case No. 80-1726], and 105 Wis.2d 764, 318 N.W.2d 23 [Case No. 81-684].

HEFFERNAN, J.

We review two separate decisions of the court of appeals. Because the cases arose out of the same incident, present substantially the same questions of law and fact, and by direction of this court were argued on the same day, we consider it appropriate to consider the review...

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