Thomas Edward Fairchild

The case concerned whether the Milwaukee Braves baseball team's relocation and the American League's related decisions violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute, sec. 133.01, by restraining trade and monopolizing commerce within the state. The Wisconsin Supreme Court examined the facts showing that major league baseball operations had been terminated in Wisconsin through agreements among the defendants. The court reasoned that the first sentence of the statute broadly prohibits combinations in restraint of trade or commerce, separate from the second sentence's focus on articles or commodities, and that the conduct described could constitute an unlawful restraint or monopolization. It also addressed potential defenses, including whether the statute applied to a service business, whether state regulation would conflict with federal commerce policy, and whether the franchise move was reasonably decided.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a criminal defendant appealing his conviction, challenging the jury instructions on the insanity defense. The Wisconsin Supreme Court adhered to its prior Esser decision, requiring proof of lack of capacity to understand the nature and quality of the act or to distinguish right from wrong. The court reasoned that no evidence showed injustice under this standard when the state bears the burden of proof, and it declined to adopt alternative formulations such as the ALI test or product-of-mental-disease test used elsewhere. The opinion surveyed legislative changes in other states but concluded that Wisconsin's approach remained adequate without statutory amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a passenger, Barbara Sulkowski, who was injured when the car driven by Robert hit a parked vehicle; she sued for damages from her facial laceration and other injuries, while defendants argued she was contributorily negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout and potentially distracting the driver. The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to submit the issue of her contributory negligence to the jury, that the $10,000 damage award was not excessive given the permanent scar, and that she could recover the reasonable value of future care even though she married after the injury. The reasoning emphasized that a passenger is not held to the same standard of lookout as the driver, that her brief glance at the driver immediately before impact did not support a negligence finding, and that recovery rights for care are determined based on circumstances at the time of the injury. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

torts & liability

This case arose from a 1957 car-train collision at a Wisconsin highway-rail crossing where a standing freight car obstructed the road at night, injuring plaintiff McLaughlin. The trial court ordered a new trial limited to one damages element while making other rulings, prompting appeals on negligence findings, damage calculations including medical expenses, and appellate jurisdiction over mixed orders. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that it could review the entire order on appeal from the partial new-trial grant, that the railroad was negligent as a matter of law for leaving the crossing blocked without warnings, and that certain medical costs were recoverable; it modified the order by reinstating a $1,931.39 damages figure and affirmed as modified.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between the Village of West Milwaukee and the City of West Allis over fiscal authority in a school district formed under Wisconsin's city school plan after reorganization, which spans multiple municipalities. The court addressed whether the common council of West Allis or a broader 'fiscal board' (including representatives from attached territories) held power to approve the school budget and levy property taxes, as well as whether interest earned on school funds belonged to the city or the school district. The court affirmed declarations that the fiscal board has sole authority to approve the budget and levy taxes under statutes like secs. 40.807, 40.809, 40.813, and 40.815, and held that interest on school funds must augment the funds controlled by the fiscal board rather than the city's general funds. This conclusion rested on the statutory structure for reorganized districts, which gives the fiscal board representative control over a wider tax base, distinguishing it from prior precedent in Board of Education v. Racine. The court reversed one declaration and remanded for further proceedings.

taxesproperty

The case involved landowners challenging the state's authority to condemn 'scenic easements' along the Great River Road (a national parkway project) to preserve views of natural landscapes for the traveling public, arguing that such easements were not a public use and lacked adequate standards or equal application. The court affirmed the judgments upholding the takings, concluding that the legislature had validly determined the protection of scenic resources to be a public purpose and had provided sufficient guidance to the highway commission for acquiring the easements via eminent domain. The core reasoning relied on legislative history from 1939 onward defining scenic easements as restrictions on future development (while allowing continued agricultural use) without needing physical public occupancy, noted prior recognition of scenic enjoyment as a public right, and held that once public use and necessity are established, owners cannot claim equal protection violations based on selective application to different properties.

propertyenvironment

This case involved a ten-year-old boy throwing snowballs at cars who was restrained by an adult witness, held by the arm, placed in a car, and driven into the village to identify other boys to police. The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the adult's actions presented a jury question of reasonableness up to the point the boy was put in the car but constituted false imprisonment and nominal battery thereafter as a matter of law. The court reasoned that while a private citizen may be privileged to take reasonable steps to prevent dangerous conduct or the commission of a crime, transporting the child away from his nearby home exceeded those limits once his identity was obtained and he had been admonished. The judgment in favor of the defendant was reversed, with the case remanded solely for determination of compensatory damages.

torts & liabilitycriminal law

This case involved a boundary dispute between owners of adjacent lots, with the Burners claiming title to land up to the Andrews line based on a prior stipulation in an action between their predecessors and Wille's predecessor, while Wille's side prevailed on the Olson line as the true boundary per the original government survey. The Burners appealed after the county court rejected their claim, arguing res judicata from the prior action and adverse possession under the stipulation for over ten years. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the Burners failed to properly plead or prove res judicata by offering only a stipulation transcript rather than the full judgment record, and they did not establish any continuous ten-year period of adverse possession up to the Andrews line after their 1959 purchase. The stipulation was not shown to bind Wille, who bought his lot in 1953 without notice, and it was not recorded in a way that affected title.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute over payments due under a construction contract, including claims by the plaintiff contractor for work performed and amounts owed to subcontractors, as well as related garnishment proceedings. The court addressed whether interest accrued on unpaid amounts and how costs should be taxed after an arbitrator's award and court orders for disbursement. It held that subcontractors waived any interest claim by accepting principal payments without reservation, but the plaintiff was entitled to limited interest on his personal claim once it became sufficiently determinable via a bill of particulars. The court also corrected an error in reducing allowable costs and ruled that only one set of statutory fees applied despite the garnishment component. The judgment was modified to increase the award by $130.81 and affirmed as modified, with no costs awarded on appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a divorce proceeding between Mr. and Mrs. Ausman, focusing on the division of marital property and awards of alimony and child support. The trial court divided the net estate 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband, allowed the wife to remain in the family home until the youngest child reaches 18, and awarded $300 per month in combined alimony and support. On appeal, the court affirmed the property division, reasoning that it accounted for the wife's contributions from her inheritance and the parties' joint efforts, but reduced the support and alimony to $200 per month total, finding an abuse of discretion given the husband's reduced income. The decision also addressed the temporary use of the home as support rather than final property allocation.

family lawproperty

The case Sinden v. Laabs concerned a real estate broker's claim for a commission under an exclusive listing agreement set to run for three months. The plaintiff argued that the agreement formed a bilateral contract that the owner could not unilaterally revoke, while the defendant maintained she retained the right to revoke in good faith before full performance, citing Levander v. Johnson. The trial court found the owner could not revoke but denied recovery because no buyer had been produced by the deadline. On appeal, the court held that the broker's efforts rendered the contract binding, yet he failed to prove damages from the breach or the reasonable value of services rendered, leaving him without a remedy under either contract or quantum meruit theories. The judgment affirming the nonsuit was therefore upheld.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a petition by city electors under Wis. Stat. sec. 10.43 seeking to compel the common council either to adopt an ordinance prohibiting fluoridation of the municipal water supply or to submit the measure to a popular vote, in an effort to reverse the council's prior resolution authorizing fluoridation. The court held that sec. 10.43 does not authorize such petitions to repeal or force a referendum on an existing ordinance or resolution. The core reasoning was that the statute provides only an initiative procedure for new legislation, as shown by its text, legislative history (which omitted the referendum provisions from the 1911 predecessor law), and the traditional distinction between initiatives and referendums; express statutory authorizations for repeal in other specific contexts further confirmed that no general repeal power exists under sec. 10.43.

electionsprocedure

This case involves a tort lawsuit brought by a mother against her unemancipated minor child for injuries from an accident that occurred before June 28, 1963. The court considered whether its prior decision in Goller v. White, which abrogated parental immunity in tort actions with prospective effect only, also eliminated the child's immunity in parent-versus-child suits. The opinion traces the shared policy basis of both immunities—the preservation of family harmony—and notes that Aulik had treated the child's immunity as a direct corollary of the parent's. Because Goller rejected that policy rationale, the court held that the child's immunity was likewise abrogated but only for causes of action arising on or after the Goller decision date. As a result, the pre-Goller immunity still barred the mother's claim, and the judgment dismissing the action was affirmed.

torts & liabilityfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between neighboring property owners over easement rights in an undeveloped portion of a platted but never-built road called Fox Grove Drive in a 1927 subdivision along the Fox River, as well as compliance with county zoning rules. The court decided that the 1945 deed granted the owners of the landlocked parcel a right-of-way only to a sufficient and reasonably convenient access route, not the full width of the undeveloped strip, and that a prima facie zoning violation existed due to substandard lot width, though further hearings were required on enforcement. It reversed the county court's broad injunction against construction, reasoning from the distinct wording of the deed provisions—one specifically for the right-of-way to the landlocked parcel and another for use of developed streets—and from the ordinance's minimum lot dimensions, while limiting any injunction accordingly and remanding for additional proceedings.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Burnett, the defendant was convicted of murder during a robbery after his signed confession was admitted at trial and he challenged both the confession's voluntariness (including his capacity to waive rights without counsel) and the jury selection process on grounds of systematic exclusion of Negroes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that the trial judge's independent post-trial finding of voluntariness satisfied due-process requirements under Jackson v. Denno, and that the low overall percentage of Negroes on jury lists (approximately one percent) did not compel an inference of systematic exclusion given the jury commissioners' testimony and evidence of occasional Negro service. The court rejected the other claims regarding improper jury array and prejudice from submitting voluntariness to the jury.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved the timeliness of an appeal from a judgment of legal separation in a divorce proceeding, as well as issues regarding the effective date of support, alimony, and attorney fee provisions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the appeal from the legal separation portion of the judgment was untimely because the one-year appeal period under Wis. Stat. § 247.37(4) begins upon the oral pronouncement of the judgment, following precedent from Chase v. Chase. The court reasoned that, despite potential legislative history suggesting otherwise, the need for consistency with the modification period and reliance interests justified applying the divorce appeal rules to legal separations. For the remaining provisions, the court modified the judgment to eliminate retroactive increases in payments, making them effective only from the date of the written judgment.

family lawprocedure

In Moore v. Suburban Mobile, Inc., the dispute centered on whether an oral insurance contract was formed between the Moores and Foremost Insurance Company for coverage on a newly purchased mobile home, amid confusion over the insurer's identity and the scope of coverage. The circuit court found that a valid contract existed with Foremost for fire, theft, and combined additional coverage, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed this ruling. The court reasoned that the evidence did not show the specific insurer's identity was a material term that would prevent contract formation, as Moore's possible misunderstanding about dealing with Continental was not compelling enough to override the dealings, and the premium paid matched Foremost's rates for the broader coverage that its policies required alongside fire and theft. Supporting facts included Crotteau's completion of Foremost forms, use of its rate manual, and testimony that Foremost would not issue fire and theft coverage without the additional elements.

business & regulatory

This case was a personal injury action arising from a car accident in which plaintiff Rivera claimed damages for past and future pain and suffering due to back and neck injuries. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's reduction of the jury's award, upholding $3,000 for past pain and suffering as supported by evidence of the plaintiff's symptoms, treatment, and recovery timeline. However, the court held that no award for future pain and suffering was justified because the physicians' opinions, based on examinations nearly a year before trial, failed to meet the Diemel v. Weirich standard requiring competent expert testimony establishing medical certainty or probability of ongoing pain for subjective injuries. The core reasoning focused on preventing jury speculation in the absence of timely and adequate medical evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of a restrictive covenant in a commercial lease between North Gate Corp., the lessor, and National Food Stores, Inc., the lessee. The key question was whether the term "its beneficiaries" in the lease, referring to the corporate lessor, included its shareholders, thereby preventing shareholders from allowing competing retail food stores on nearby land they owned individually. The court held that "beneficiaries" does not mean shareholders and affirmed the judgment in favor of North Gate. The reasoning emphasized the ordinary meaning of "beneficiary," which typically relates to trusts or estates rather than corporate shareholders, the principle of strict construction against the drafter (National), and the fact that the parties could have easily used the term "shareholders" if that was intended.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation claim for increased benefits after an employee was killed when a crane contacted a live electrical line in violation of a safety order requiring cranes to stay at least six feet from energized lines unless de-energized. The Industrial Commission awarded a 15% increase under Wis. Stat. sec. 102.57, but the circuit court set it aside, finding no evidence that the employer bore responsibility for the violation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the setting aside of the award but modified the judgment to remand the record to the commission for further hearings. The core reasoning was that the violation resulted from the crane operator's momentary, unanticipated negligence rather than the employer's failure to direct operations safely, use adequate safety methods, or reasonably enforce compliance, and the record was incomplete partly because the applicant's widow lacked counsel at the hearing.

labor & employment