Van Dien v. Riopelle

3 Citing cases

  1. Ewing v. General Motors Corp.

    236 N.W.2d 200 (Wis. 1975)   Cited 8 times
    In Ewing, this court dismissed the above quoted language from Van Dien as "not an accurate statement of the law," Ewing v. General Motors Corp., supra at 970, and affirmed the trial court order.

    " (1968), 40 Wis.2d 719, 723, 162 N.W.2d 615. But this dictum is not an accurate statement of the law.

  2. Nolte v. Michels Pipeline Const. Inc.

    265 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. 1978)   Cited 5 times

    Nor do they have an interest `in obtaining the relief demanded,' since they each seek a separate damages recovery." Schlosser v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., supra at 159-60, citing Van Dien v. Riopelle, 40 Wis.2d 719, 162 N.W.2d 615 (1968); and Hartwig v. Bitter, 29 Wis.2d 653, 139 N.W.2d 644 (1966). In Hartwig v. Bitter, supra, this court held that two plaintiffs who had allegedly been damaged by two separate acts of misrepresentation more than two years apart by the same defendant could not join their claims under secs.

  3. Schlosser v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.

    222 N.W.2d 156 (Wis. 1974)   Cited 35 times

    For similar reasons, the retired employees could not avail themselves of the party joinder provision of sec. 260.10, Stats., which provides: In Van Dien v. Riopelle (1968), 40 Wis.2d 719, 723, 162 N.W.2d 615, this court indicated in dicta that if there is a conflict between sec. 260.10, Stats. (who may join as plaintiffs) and sec. 263.04 (joinder of causes of action), then sec. 260.10 prevails. "All persons having an interest in the subject of the action or in obtaining the relief demanded may be joined as plaintiffs."