From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holsen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Jun 14, 1994
185 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 1994)

Opinion

No. 92-3216.

Filed June 14, 1994.



(Originally reported at 182 Wis.2d 457, 513 N.W.2d 690 (Ct.App. 1994).)


A petition for review pursuant to sec. 808.10, Stats., a motion to supplement the record, a motion for permission to file reply in support of petition for review, and a motion for permission to file supplementary memo in support of petition for review having been filed on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners Beth Holsen, et al., and the court noting that the petition for review raises issues regarding the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the court further noting that it recently addressed similar issues in its decision issued May 25, 1994 in Bowen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 183 Wis.2d 627, 517 N.W.2d 423 (1994).

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for permission to file supplementary memo in support of petition for review granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record and the motion to file reply in support of petition for review are denied;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for review is granted. The court of appeals' decision is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this court's decision in Bowen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 183 Wis.2d 627, 517 N.W.2d 423 (1994).

Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court


Summaries of

Holsen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Jun 14, 1994
185 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 1994)
Case details for

Holsen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Beth HOLSEN, Charles Holsen, Jr., Daniel Holsen, James Holsen, Jill Jones…

Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Date published: Jun 14, 1994

Citations

185 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 1994)
517 N.W.2d 448

Citing Cases

Estate of Roppe v. Roppe

Rather, the court could make that determination by assessing the lay witnesses' credibility and considering…

Ricciardi v. Sparbel

Such statements constitute "just conclusions, not facts," and as such are insufficient to refute a motion for…