statements rule in Wisconsin

2026Objective bias exists when “a reasonable person could question the court’s impartiality based on the court’s statements.” Goodson, 320 Wis. 2d 166, ¶9 . “[I]t is the exceptional case with ‘extreme facts’ which rises to the level of a ‘serious risk of actual bias.’” Miller, 392 Wis. 2d 49 , ¶24 (quoted source omitted). ¶39 In support of this assertion, Smith cites the circuit court’s statements at trial that it did not want to go down a “dubious line of fraud” with respect to one of Smith’s arguments about the UCC, and that it appeared Smith was “grasping at straws to evade making payment for a

2024A. “Prejudged” case and treated Schworck unfairly ¶17 Schworck argues that the circuit court “prejudged [Schworck]’s response in opposition to [Okello]’s motion” and prevented him from “making a record of why he believed … that the [circuit] court should dismiss [Okello]’s [m]otion.” We understand Schworck to be arguing that there is both: (1) the appearance of prejudgment—i.e., that a reasonable person would conclude that the circuit court “‘could not be trusted to hold the balance nice, clear and true’” based on the court’s statements at the hearing, see Goodson, 320 Wis. 2d 166, ¶9 ; and (2

2026Objective bias exists when “a reasonable person could question the court’s impartiality based on the court’s statements.” Goodson, 320 Wis. 2d 166, ¶9 . “[I]t is the exceptional case with ‘extreme facts’ which rises to the level of a ‘serious risk of actual bias.’” Miller, 392 Wis. 2d 49 , ¶24 (quoted source omitted). ¶39 In support of this assertion, Smith cites the circuit court’s statements at trial that it did not want to go down a “dubious line of fraud” with respect to one of Smith’s arguments about the UCC, and that it appeared Smith was “grasping at straws to evade making payment for a

2026In other words, all of the court’s comments were made after hearing the evidence and Smith’s arguments, and represent the court’s assessments of the arguments, not personal impressions or preconceived views of Smith. ¶40 Smith asserts that her case is distinguishable from State v. Rochelt, 165 Wis. 2d 373 , 477 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1991), in which this court concluded that the defendant received a fair trial, because “here the record demonstrates repeated reliance on personal impressions in place of statutory analysis.

2026In other words, all of the court’s comments were made after hearing the evidence and Smith’s arguments, and represent the court’s assessments of the arguments, not personal impressions or preconceived views of Smith. ¶40 Smith asserts that her case is distinguishable from State v. Rochelt, 165 Wis. 2d 373 , 477 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1991), in which this court concluded that the defendant received a fair trial, because “here the record demonstrates repeated reliance on personal impressions in place of statutory analysis.

2004Thomas, 232 Wis. 2d 714, ¶18 .

1997DeLoach, 34 F.3d at 1005 .

1997In United States v. DeLoach, 34 F.3d 1001 (11th Cir. 1994), the court did not expressly adopt the approach in McKeon , but decided that the statements the defense sought to admit — the prosecutor's comments in closing argument of a prior trial concerning the same incidents but not the same defendant — did not in any event meet the requirements of McKeon.

1974It also gathers the U.S. Supreme Court citations which support the privilege including United States v. Morgan (1941), 313 U.S. 409 , 422 , 61 S.Ct. 999 , 85 L.Ed. 1429 , which holds that it is not the function of the court to probe the mental processes by which the Secretary of Agriculture made his determination to make an order fixing maximum rates for stockyards, and United States v. Reynolds (1953), 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 , which recognized that executive privilege as to military and state secrets has been long established in the law of evidence and that whether the privi

1974It also gathers the U.S. Supreme Court citations which support the privilege including United States v. Morgan (1941), 313 U.S. 409 , 422 , 61 S.Ct. 999 , 85 L.Ed. 1429 , which holds that it is not the function of the court to probe the mental processes by which the Secretary of Agriculture made his determination to make an order fixing maximum rates for stockyards, and United States v. Reynolds (1953), 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 , which recognized that executive privilege as to military and state secrets has been long established in the law of evidence and that whether the privi

1974It also gathers the U.S. Supreme Court citations which support the privilege including United States v. Morgan (1941), 313 U.S. 409 , 422 , 61 S.Ct. 999 , 85 L.Ed. 1429 , which holds that it is not the function of the court to probe the mental processes by which the Secretary of Agriculture made his determination to make an order fixing maximum rates for stockyards, and United States v. Reynolds (1953), 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 , which recognized that executive privilege as to military and state secrets has been long established in the law of evidence and that whether the privi

1974It also gathers the U.S. Supreme Court citations which support the privilege including United States v. Morgan (1941), 313 U.S. 409 , 422 , 61 S.Ct. 999 , 85 L.Ed. 1429 , which holds that it is not the function of the court to probe the mental processes by which the Secretary of Agriculture made his determination to make an order fixing maximum rates for stockyards, and United States v. Reynolds (1953), 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 , which recognized that executive privilege as to military and state secrets has been long established in the law of evidence and that whether the privi

1961One of the best statements of these factors we have come across is that appearing in Estate of Huffman (1944), 349 Pa. 59, 64 , 36 Atl. (2d) 640: “ ‘The things to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be recovered by an attorney are the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, the time, and trouble involved, the character and importance of the litigation, the amount of money or value of the property affected, the professional skill and experience called for, and the standing of the attorney in his profession; to which may be added the general ability o

1961One of the best statements of these factors we have come across is that appearing in Estate of Huffman (1944), 349 Pa. 59, 64 , 36 Atl. (2d) 640: “ ‘The things to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be recovered by an attorney are the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, the time, and trouble involved, the character and importance of the litigation, the amount of money or value of the property affected, the professional skill and experience called for, and the standing of the attorney in his profession; to which may be added the general ability o

1961One of the best statements of these factors we have come across is that appearing in Estate of Huffman (1944), 349 Pa. 59, 64 , 36 Atl. (2d) 640: “ ‘The things to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be recovered by an attorney are the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, the time, and trouble involved, the character and importance of the litigation, the amount of money or value of the property affected, the professional skill and experience called for, and the standing of the attorney in his profession; to which may be added the general ability o

1961One of the best statements of these factors we have come across is that appearing in Estate of Huffman (1944), 349 Pa. 59, 64 , 36 Atl. (2d) 640: “ ‘The things to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be recovered by an attorney are the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, the time, and trouble involved, the character and importance of the litigation, the amount of money or value of the property affected, the professional skill and experience called for, and the standing of the attorney in his profession; to which may be added the general ability o

1961One of the best statements of these factors we have come across is that appearing in Estate of Huffman (1944), 349 Pa. 59, 64 , 36 Atl. (2d) 640: “ ‘The things to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be recovered by an attorney are the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, the time, and trouble involved, the character and importance of the litigation, the amount of money or value of the property affected, the professional skill and experience called for, and the standing of the attorney in his profession; to which may be added the general ability o

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960As has been frequently said, while in ordinary civil matters the *29 person on whom the burden of proof rests may rely upon evidence establishing the facts to a reasonable certainty, though the evidence be not, in all respects, clear and satisfactory, not so where fraud is the gist of the matter, then he must go further, — not to the extent of establishing the charge with the highest degree of certainty, but to that one which rests, not only in reasonable certainty, but on evidence which is clear and satisfactory.” The court relied on Lepley v. Andersen (1910), 142 Wis. 668 , 125 N. W. 433 , w

1960As has been frequently said, while in ordinary civil matters the *29 person on whom the burden of proof rests may rely upon evidence establishing the facts to a reasonable certainty, though the evidence be not, in all respects, clear and satisfactory, not so where fraud is the gist of the matter, then he must go further, — not to the extent of establishing the charge with the highest degree of certainty, but to that one which rests, not only in reasonable certainty, but on evidence which is clear and satisfactory.” The court relied on Lepley v. Andersen (1910), 142 Wis. 668 , 125 N. W. 433 , w

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1960The standard in terms of the quality of the evidence, rather than the preponderance, was followed in the following fraud or undue-influence cases: Boardman v. Lorentzen, supra; Milwaukee Worsted Mills v. Winsor (1914), 157 Wis. 538 , 147 N. W. 1068 ; State v. Solomon (1914), 158 Wis. 146 , 147 N. W. 640 ; Elliott v. Fisk (1916), 162 Wis. 249 , 155 N. W. 110 ; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517 , 190 N. W. 355 ; Will of Emerson (1924), 183 Wis. 437 , 198 N. W. 441 ; Will of Fortner (1926), 188 Wis. 594 , 206 N. W. 969 ; Will of Shaver (1925), 187 Wis. 647 , 205 N. W. 320 ; Will of Schaefer (

1940Such motion, if not decided within the time allowed therefor, shall be deemed overruled." The company having introduced the statements on which the claim for a new trial is based in evidence upon the trial the motion would be for a new trial on the minutes of the court as distinguished from the motions involved in Osmundson v. Lang , 233 Wis. 591 , 290 N.W. 125 , and Hoffman v. Labutzke , 233 Wis. 365 , 289 N.W. 652 .

1940Such motion, if not decided within the time allowed therefor, shall be deemed overruled." The company having introduced the statements on which the claim for a new trial is based in evidence upon the trial the motion would be for a new trial on the minutes of the court as distinguished from the motions involved in Osmundson v. Lang , 233 Wis. 591 , 290 N.W. 125 , and Hoffman v. Labutzke , 233 Wis. 365 , 289 N.W. 652 .

1940Such motion, if not decided within the time allowed therefor, shall be deemed overruled." The company having introduced the statements on which the claim for a new trial is based in evidence upon the trial the motion would be for a new trial on the minutes of the court as distinguished from the motions involved in Osmundson v. Lang , 233 Wis. 591 , 290 N.W. 125 , and Hoffman v. Labutzke , 233 Wis. 365 , 289 N.W. 652 .

1940Such motion, if not decided within the time allowed therefor, shall be deemed overruled." The company having introduced the statements on which the claim for a new trial is based in evidence upon the trial the motion would be for a new trial on the minutes of the court as distinguished from the motions involved in Osmundson v. Lang , 233 Wis. 591 , 290 N.W. 125 , and Hoffman v. Labutzke , 233 Wis. 365 , 289 N.W. 652 .