MacPherson v. Strand

6 Citing cases

  1. Kleinstick v. Daleiden

    71 Wis. 2d 432 (Wis. 1976)   Cited 39 times
    Noting that a reason why an appellate court gives deference to a trial court's findings is "the superior opportunity of the trial court to observe the demeanor of witnesses and to gauge the persuasiveness of their testimony"

    The findings of a referee, when confirmed by the trial court, become the findings of the trial court, and our standard of review is the familiar one of whether such findings are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.MacPherson v. Strand (1952), 262 Wis. 360, 36.6, 55 N.W.2d 354; Mohs v. Quarton (1950), 257 Wis. 544, 547, 44 N.W.2d 580. The finding of the referee that the value of the inventory at cost was as represented by the Kleinsticks is not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.

  2. Hochgurtel v. San Felippo

    78 Wis. 2d 70 (Wis. 1977)   Cited 39 times
    In Hochgurtel v. San Felippo, 78 Wis. 2d 70, 253 N.W.2d 526 (1977), our supreme court discussed WIS. STAT. ยง 270.33 (1973)โ€”a statute that contained identical language to the relevant language at issue in ยง 799.215.

    The purpose of the statute is to protect the rights of the litigants and to facilitate review of the record by an appellate court. This court has stressed the importance of compliance with sec. 270.33. Estate of Olson, 271 Wis. 199, 208, 72 N.W.2d 717 (1955); MacPherson v. Strand, 262 Wis. 360, 365, 55 N.W.2d 354 (1952). However, this court has held the provisions of sec. 270.33 to be directive only.

  3. Merkley v. Schramm

    31 Wis. 2d 134 (Wis. 1966)   Cited 15 times

    ". . . strict compliance with this section is of a great help to the litigants and to an appellate court."Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski, supra, footnote 2, at page 101, citing MacPherson v. Strand (1952), 262 Wis. 360, 55 N.W.2d 354. The trial court's decisions, and findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were couched in terms of a failure by appellant to meet her burden of proof, will be interpreted, for purposes of this opinion, as a positive determination that under the circumstances (1) Maxine Schramm was not negligent either in regard to a safe-place violation or at common law, and (2) Richard Schramm was not negligent. Thus, two issues are raised on this appeal.

  4. Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski

    8 Wis. 2d 94 (Wis. 1959)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kamuchey, supra, the Court found no actionable fraud where the defendant, in selling to the plaintiff the stock, fixtures, lease, and good will of his restaurant, failed to inform the plaintiff that the lease carried with it the obligation to heat the entire building in which the restaurant was located.

    Wallis v. First National Bank (1914), 155 Wis. 533, 145 N.W. 195 (a written opinion); Galewski v. Noe (1954), 266 Wis. 7, 62 N.W.2d 703 (as to the sixty days within which a decision should be filed). However, strict compliance with this section is of a great help to the litigants and to an appellate court. MacPherson v. Strand (1952), 262 Wis. 360, 55 N.W.2d 354. It is understandable that under the practice and procedure of Title XXVIII, chs. 300 to 307, Stats., relating to justices of the peace, written decisions and findings would be burdensome on the court and are not required by rules of practice.

  5. Turck v. Seefeldt

    68 N.W.2d 534 (Wis. 1955)   Cited 3 times
    In Turck v. Seefeldt (268 Wis. 559) and Van Dyke v. Lauer (100 N.W.2d 335 [Wis.]) we again find acceptance of the rule that where the escrow agent embezzles the funds before the time to release them has come, he has embezzled the depositor's money and not the funds of the one who was to receive them.

    Findings of fact by the trial court are not to be reversed unless contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. MacPherson v. Strand (1952), 262 Wis. 360, 55 N.W.2d 354; Estate of Schaefer (1952), 261 Wis. 431, 437, 53 N.W.2d 427. The appellant submits that the findings are not supported by the evidence. The foregoing statement of facts, culled from the record, and the reasonable inference therefrom, which the trial court was privileged to draw, affords the findings the necessary support.

  6. Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac

    2003 WI App. 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Awarding attorney fees against a motor vehicle dealer under WIS. STAT. ยง 218.0163

    "The findings of the referee when confirmed by the court become the findings of the court." MacPherson v. Strand, 262 Wis. 360, 366, 55 N.W.2d 354 (1952). Because the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, and the record here contains sufficient evidence to support the findings of the referee as adopted by the court, under the rule cited above, we will not disturb the trial court's reliance on the referee's findings.