case comes within rule in Wisconsin

1979“The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.” Wayne v. United States, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 234, 241 , 318 F.2d 205, 212 (opinion of Burger, J.) cert. denied, 375 U.S. 860 (1963) quoted with approval in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 392-93 .

1979“The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.” Wayne v. United States, 115 U.S. App. D.C. 234, 241 , 318 F.2d 205, 212 (opinion of Burger, J.) cert. denied, 375 U.S. 860 (1963) quoted with approval in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 392-93 .

1971As a result of the trial court’s inadequate findings, this case comes within the rule set forth in Barnes v. State (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 116, 122 , 130 N. W. 2d 264 , where this court said: “In the instant case we do not have the benefit of any finding of fact by the trial court with respect to whether or not defendant voluntarily consented to the search.

1971As a result of the trial court’s inadequate findings, this case comes within the rule set forth in Barnes v. State (1964), 25 Wis. 2d 116, 122 , 130 N. W. 2d 264 , where this court said: “In the instant case we do not have the benefit of any finding of fact by the trial court with respect to whether or not defendant voluntarily consented to the search.

1925Co. v. Simmons Co. 167 Wis. 541, 168 N. W. 199 .

1925Co. v. Simmons Co. 167 Wis. 541, 168 N. W. 199 .

1896It is further claimed that the case comes within the rule that, where only a part of the contract was reduced to writing, it is competent to prove by parol that part that rests in parol, under the rule referred to, but not applied, in Hubbard v. Marshall, 50 Wis. 322 .

1892Defendant claims that the evidence was undisputed that the stair opening was outside of the usually traveléd walk, and that consequently the case comes within the rule established in Fitzgerald v. Berlin, 64 Wis. 203 .

1888I think the case comes within the rule stated by the court in the cases of Page v. Bent, 2 Met. 371, 376 , and Tucker v. White, 125 Mass. 344, 347 .

1888I think the case comes within the rule stated by the court in the cases of Page v. Bent, 2 Met. 371, 376 , and Tucker v. White, 125 Mass. 344, 347 .

1884This case comes within the rule laid down in the case of Teegarden v. Racine, 56 Wis. 545 .

1883The liability of the city for the damages resulting from grading down Washington street, adjoining the plaintiff’s premises, is placed upon the ground that its officers, in doing the work, did not proceed according to the provisions of the charter; therefore, the case comes within the principle decided in Orosselt v. Janesville, 28 Wis., 420 , and that class of cases.

1879As was said by the present chief justice of this court in Mullin’s Appeal, 40 Wis., 154 -156: “It is always the duty of all courts, where it can be done, to overcome and disregard such clerical errors, ut res magis valeat guam pereat.” This remark may be applied, not only to the objection to the form of the bond, but to all the other objections to the regularity of the proceedings in this case.

1872The counsel for the respondent argues that the case comes within the rule laid down by this court, in the cases of Oliver v Town, 24 Wis., 512 , and Sexton v. Willard, 27 id., 465.