Bublitz v. Matulis

148 N.W.2d 64, 34 Wis. 2d 23, 1967 Wisc. LEXIS 1059
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 8, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 148 N.W.2d 64 (Bublitz v. Matulis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bublitz v. Matulis, 148 N.W.2d 64, 34 Wis. 2d 23, 1967 Wisc. LEXIS 1059 (Wis. 1967).

Opinion

Per Curiam

(on a motion to dismiss the appeal).

Sec. 274.11 (1), Stats., provides an appeal is taken by serving a notice of appeal on each party adverse to the appellant upon the appeal who appeared in the action or proceeding and by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the court in which the judgment or order appealed from is entered. With exceptions not important *24 here, the time within which an appeal may be taken to this court from any judgment or order is limited to three months from service of the notice of entry of judgment or order and to six months from the date of the entry of the judgment or order if no such notice is served. Sec. 274.01. In this case an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint was entered August 16, 1966, in the circuit court for Waukesha county and the plaintiffs served a notice of entry of the order on the defendants. The defendants served a notice of appeal on the plaintiffs within the three-months’ period but did not file with the clerk of the circuit court until after the expiration of the three-months’ period.

The defendants argue the failure to file the notice of appeal was a mere formality, which can be corrected by the invocation of sec. 274.32, Stats. We think not.

In 1963 this court changed the appeal procedure and required service of the notice of the appeal upon the adverse party and the filing thereof with the clerk of the court rather than service upon him. Both of these acts must be done within the prescribed time period to constitute a taking of an appeal. Since this procedure was not followed, the appeal was not timely taken and must be dismissed.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Eau Claire v. Melissa M. Booth
2016 WI 65 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2016)
Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue
332 N.W.2d 841 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1983)
State v. Van Duyse
224 N.W.2d 603 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1975)
City of Milwaukee v. Cohen
203 N.W.2d 633 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1973)
United States v. Burczyk
194 N.W.2d 608 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1972)
Brachtl v. Department of Revenue
179 N.W.2d 921 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)
City of Mequon v. Bruseth
177 N.W.2d 852 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 N.W.2d 64, 34 Wis. 2d 23, 1967 Wisc. LEXIS 1059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bublitz-v-matulis-wis-1967.