Quality Outfitters, Inc. v. Risko
| Decision Date | 03 June 1958 |
| Citation | 4 Wis.2d 341,90 N.W.2d 638 |
| Parties | QUALITY OUTFITTERS, Inc., a Wis. corporation, et al., Respondents, v. H. Charles RISKO, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Milton S. Padway, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Robert A. Hess; Hess & Chernov, Milwaukee, for respondents.
This order is not appealable. It is not found among those orders named or described as appealable by sec. 274.33, West's Wis.Stats. Annotated.
Appellant submits that it is included there, being an order which decides a question of jurisdiction. A reading of the order is sufficient to show that it was Judge Cannon's order which determined jurisdiction. This appeal is not from that order. The order appealed from expressly refused to review Judge Cannon's decision on the jurisdictional issue.
The order here on appeal denied Risko's motion to suppress the discovery examination. Such orders have been expressly held non-appealable. Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Flagge, 1920, 170 Wis. 492, 175 N.W. 777; Hyslop v. Hyslop, 1940, 234 Wis. 430, 291 N.W. 337. In State ex rel. St. Mary's Hospital v. Industrial Comm., 1947, 250 Wis. 516, 519, 27 N.W.2d 478, 480, we commented on these two cases, saying that they '* * * hold that orders relating to the taking of adverse examinations, since they merely regulate procedure, are not appealable. * * *'
The order denied the motion to quash the subpoena in that part which required the production of documents. If this is treated as an order refusing to suppress the examination in part it is no more appealable than the order refusing to suppress the entire examination. More accurately in this respect the motion was one to limit the examination. The order of the court did limit the examination, though not as drastically as appellant desired, as can be seen by a reference to the order itself. Such orders of limitation are not appealable. Dobbert v. Dobbert, 1953, 264 Wis. 641, 60 N.W.2d 378; In re Will of Block, 1953, 264 Wis. 471, 59 N.W.2d 440.
Risko contends that in this particular case to compel him to produce his books and papers infringes his constitutional right not to incriminate himself, and also violates the privilege between attorney and client. If among such documents there are privileged communications and some of them would tend to convict Risko of crime, that does not give appealability to the order requiring Risko to bring them to the examination. There, when and if he is required to put them in evidence he may make these objections as well as any others which occur to him and the court commissioner will rule. If dissatisfied, Risko may have the question and ruling certified to the circuit court. See 'Discovery Practice in Wisconsin', Lay, Wis.Law Rev., Vol. 1954, pp. 452-453.
Finally, appellant submits that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Converters Equipment Corp. v. Condes Corp.
...since it was sent only to those who had a direct financial interest in the settlement of the estate).24 Quality Outfitters v. Risko, 4 Wis.2d 341, 90 N.W.2d 638 (1958); Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Flagge, 170 Wis. 492, 175 N.W. 777 (1920); Hyslop v. Hyslop, 234 Wis. 430, 291 N.W. 337 (1940......
-
Buchen v. Wisconsin Tobacco Co., Inc., s. 431
...8, 298 N.W. 57, an order which merely limits the scope of an examination, as this one does, is not appealable. Quality Outfitters v. Risko (1958), 4 Wis.2d 341, 90 N.W.2d 638; Dobbert v. Dobbert (1953), 264 Wis. 641, 60 N.W.2d 378; Will of Block (1953), 264 Wis. 471, 59 N.W.2d 440; Hyslop v......
-
Bavarian Soccer Club, Inc. v. Pierson
...*.'4 (1871), 28 Wis. 386.5 Hudson v. Graff (1948), 253 Wis. 1, 33 N.W.2d 174, and cases cited therein. See also Quality Outfitters v. Risko (1958), 4 Wis.2d 341, 90 N.W.2d 638; Zawerschnik v. Bell (1959), 6 Wis.2d 185, 94 N.W.2d 641. In Appleton, City of v. Sauer (1956), 271 Wis. 614, 74 N.......
-
Zawerschnik v. Bell
...430, 291 N.W. 337; State ex rel. St. Mary's Hospital v. Industrial Comm., 1947, 250 Wis. 516, 27 N.W.2d 478; Quality Outfitters, Inc. v. Risko, 1958, 4 Wis.2d 341, 90 N.W.2d 638. Defendant argues that the order, since it affirms the order set forth in the subpoena of the court commissioner ......