Hansen Ex Rel. Llaurado v. Crown Controls Corp., 519 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Hansen Ex Rel. Llaurado v. Crown Controls Corp., 519 N.W.2d 346 (Wis. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tanner v. Shoupe (wisctapp, 1999-05-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Tanner v. Shoupe (2×)
Wis. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hansen v. Crown Controls Corp., 181 Wis. 2d 673 , 692 n. 15, 512 N.W.2d 509, 518 (Ct. App. 1993), vacated in part on other grounds, 185 Wis. 2d 714 , 519 N.W.2d 346 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Peplinski v. Fobe's Roofing, Inc. (2×)
Wis. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Peplinski v. Fobe's Roofing, Inc., 186 Wis. 2d 308 , 519 N.W.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mark L. Hansen, Carol Hansen, Melissa Hansen, a Minor, by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Thadd J. Llaurado, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
Crown Controls Corporation, a Foreign Corporation, and International Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants
92-3214.
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Jul 19, 1994.
519 N.W.2d 346
Marilyn Graves.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*715] A petition for review pursuant to sec. 808.10, Stats., having been filed on behalf of defendants-appellants-petitioners, Crown Controls Corporation, etc.; and this court having issued an order on February 22, 1994 holding in abeyance consideration of the petition pending the resolution of State v. Messelt, 178 Wis. 2d 320, 504 N.W.2d 362 (Ct. App. 1993) (petition for review granted October 19,1993); and the Messelt decision having been issued on June 23, 1994; 185 Wis. 2d 255, 518 N.W.2d 232 (1994).

It Is Ordered that the petition for review is denied as it relates to the issue of whether the jury instructions and special verdict were based on the trial court's erroneous interpretation of the law relating to enhanced injury;

It Is Further Ordered that the petition for review is granted as it relates to the issue of whether petitioners are entitled to a new trial because members of the jury allegedly looked up definitions of key terms to be applied in the jury's deliberations;

It Is Further Ordered that the portion of the court of appeals' decision relating to the juror conduct issue is summarily vacated and the matter is remanded to that court for reconsideration of that issue in light of this court's decision in Messelt;

It Is Further Ordered that $50 costs are awarded to petitioners.

Marilyn L. Graves

Clerk of Supreme Court