Combs v. Peters
| Decision Date | 30 June 1964 |
| Citation | 129 N.W.2d 174,23 Wis.2d 629 |
| Parties | Charles COMBS et al., Appellants, v. Harold PETERS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Kivett & Kasdorf, Milwaukee, John M. Swietlik, Milwaukee, of counsel, for respondents.
Eisenberg & Kletzke, Edwin A. Star, Milwaukee, for appellants.
The majority of the court has reached the conclusion that plaintiffs' showing of timely diligence in seeking to discover the identity of Officer Gascoigne was insufficient to make it an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to deny a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. Upon further review of the record, however (independent of the proposed new evidence), and particularly of the evidence of record tending to show that defendant Peters was the offending driver, it appears probable that the jury finding to the contrary was a miscarriage of justice. For that reason we exercise our discretion under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kucharski
...793 (1973) (granting new trial in the interest of justice because evidence as a whole predominated on Kemp's side); Combs v. Peters, 23 Wis.2d 629, 129 N.W.2d 174 (1964) (given the evidence of record tending to show that the defendant was the offending driver, court determined that the jury......
-
John Mohr & Sons, Inc. v. Jahnke
...on this ground has a substantial burden to convince the trial court. Combs v. Peters (1964), 23 Wis.2d 629, 636, 640, 127 N.W.2d 750, 129 N.W.2d 174. The trial was bifurcated in that the specific performance issue created by the complaint was tried first and separately from the conspiracy i......
-
Lock v. State
...4, 58 N.W.2d 404, and have been followed recently in Hoffman v. Buggs (1959), 6 Wis.2d 488, 491, 95 N.W.2d 237, and Combs v. Peters (1964), 23 Wis.2d 629, 635, 129 N.W.2d 174. If the newly discovered evidence fails to pass any one of the five requirements, the trial court does not abuse its......
-
Behning v. Star Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc.
...237; McPhillips v. Blomgren (1966), 30 Wis.2d 134, 139, 140 N.W.2d 267; Combs v. Peters (1964), 23 Wis.2d 629, 637, 127 N.W.2d 750, 129 N.W.2d 174. We pointed out in Loomans v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. (1968), 38 Wis.2d 656, 662, 158 N.W.2d 318, 320, that we will 'look for reasons to sustain......