TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burling v. Burling

Burling, Respondent, vs. Burling, Appellant

Burling v. Burling, 82 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 7, 1957
Judges
Fairchild
Citations
82 N.W.2d 807275 Wis. 6121957 Wisc. LEXIS 314

Opinion — Fairchild

Fairchild, J.

At common law, and in early years under the code, a plaintiff had the absolute right to- discontinue an action before or after issue joined and without leave of court.

Bertschy v. McLeod, 32 Wis. 205, 210 . Later decisions, however, recognize certain qualifications upon plaintiff’s right to discontinue. Leave to discontinue may be denied, in the discretion of the court, if the rights of defendant, third parties, or the public will be substantially prejudiced by discontinuance.

State ex rel. Milwaukee v. Ludwig, 106 Wis. 226, 233 , 82 N. W. 158 ;

School District v. Clifcorn, 133 Wis. 465, 467 , 112 N. W. 1099 ;

Anderson v. Horlick’s Malted Milk Co.

137 Wis. 569, 572 , 119 N. W. 342 ;

Guinther v. Milwaukee, 217 Wis. 334 , 258 N. W. 865 . In a divorce action it has been held that plaintiff husband was not entitled to an unconditional discontinuance, but the court had discretion to require him to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in defense of the action as a condition.

Schulz v. Schulz, 128 Wis. 28, 31 , 107 N. W. 302 .

Because plaintiff’s right to discontinue is not absolute, and it is the duty of the court to exercise discretion, we consider that a plaintiff’s motion for dismissal should be heard upon notice. There was no notice to- defendant in the case before us, and the order of dismissal must therefore be reversed. We conclude that plaintiff’s motion for dismissal will still be before the circuit court, to be heard upon notice. Defendant will thus have an opportunity to present her position to the circuit court. She has asserted here that she is prejudiced by the dismissal because (1) her motion that plaintiff be adjudicated in contempt has not been decided, (2) she has had no opportunity to refute charges made against her in connection with plaintiff’s motion for a blood test, and (3) she *615 has not been awarded costs. We leave the merits of these assertions to the circuit court.

The notice of appeal included the “failure” of the circuit court to act on two matters. In a proper case, upon proper application for exercise of the superintending control of this court over others, an appropriate writ may be issued compelling a circuit court to dispose of a pending matter. Appeals are taken from orders or judgments. An “appeal” from inaction accomplishes nothing, and only the order of dismissal is before us on this appeal.

By the Court.

— Order reversed, cause remanded for further proceedings upon plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (upholding circuit court's refusal to grant plaintiff s motion to dismiss in a divorce action, noting, inter alia, that the defendant had not been given an opportunity to refute charges made against her)
1959: 11961: 11967: 11978: 21996: 119592026peak 1978 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Monson v. Monson271 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978)
  2. State ex rel. Freeman Printing Co. v. Luebke152 N.W.2d 861 (Wis. 1967)
  3. Russell v. Johnson111 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. 1961)
  4. State v. Lee542 N.W.2d 143 (Wis. 1996)
  5. Huth v. Public Service Corp.260 N.W.2d 676 (Wis. 1978)
  6. Caley v. Flegenheimer98 N.W.2d 473 (Wis. 1959)

Most recent

  1. State v. Lee542 N.W.2d 143 (Wis. 1996)
  2. Monson v. Monson271 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978)
  3. Huth v. Public Service Corp.260 N.W.2d 676 (Wis. 1978)
  4. State ex rel. Freeman Printing Co. v. Luebke152 N.W.2d 861 (Wis. 1967)
  5. Russell v. Johnson111 N.W.2d 193 (Wis. 1961)
  6. Caley v. Flegenheimer98 N.W.2d 473 (Wis. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. City of Milwaukee v. Ludwig, 82 N.W. 158 (Wis. 1900) 38
Guinther v. City of Milwaukee, 258 N.W. 865 (Wis. 1935) 19
Anderson v. Horlick's Malted Milk Co., 119 N.W. 342 (Wis. 1909) 14
Schulz v. Schulz, 107 N.W. 302 (Wis. 1906) 7
Sch. Dist. No. 11 v. Clifcorn, 112 N.W. 1099 (Wis. 1907) 3
Bertschy v. McLeod, 32 Wis. 205 (1873) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list