00-2245 Ruege, et al. v. Dougherty, et al.

By: dmc-admin//October 15, 2001//

Listen to this article

Ruth A. Ruege appeals from the judgment dismissing this action. Ruege argues on appeal that her informed consent cause of action should not have been dismissed by directed verdict and that the court improperly excluded certain testimony.

Because we conclude that the court properly granted the motion for a directed verdict and excluded the testimony, we affirm.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Foster, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Rick D. Steinberg, Brookfield

For Respondent: Mary L. Ratzel, Milwaukee; Clayton I. Riddle, Milwaukee; David F. Andres, Milwaukee; Paul J. Kelly, Milwaukee

Related Content

Replevin-Lost Dog

Clarion Bannach appeals from the judgment in replevin that returned possession of a dog to Leola Voegtline, wh[...]

April 15, 2024

Unemployment Insurance Benefits Eligibility

For fourteen years, Jonathan Todd Morris was the vice president of finance and operations for his employer, Br[...]

April 15, 2024

Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act

After a workplace accident in 2012—for which Graef received worker’s compensation benefits—he continued [...]

April 15, 2024

Sentence Modification-New Factor

Gilliam was convicted, upon a jury’s verdict, of first-degree intentional homicide while armed in December 1[...]

April 15, 2024

Petitions for Guardianship and Protective Placement

Sarah appeals circuit court orders granting My Choice Wisconsin’s petitions for guardianship and protective [...]

April 15, 2024

Insurance Coverage-Definition of “Occurrence”

Meress & Associates LLC (“Meress”) appeals orders of the circuit court denying its motion for summary [...]

April 15, 2024

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event