# Oakley v. Fireman's Fund of Wisconsin

> Wisconsin Supreme Court · June 19, 1991 · 162 Wis. 2d 821

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657070

## Case

- **Full name:** Frederic R. OAKLEY, Plaintiff-Co-Appellant, v. FIREMAN'S FUND OF WISCONSIN and Affiliated Carriage Systems, Inc., Defendants-Respondents, DANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES and Meriter Hospital, Inc., Defendants, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
- **Court:** Wisconsin Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 19, 1991
- **Citations:** 162 Wis. 2d 821; 470 N.W.2d 882; 1991 Wisc. LEXIS 478
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Abrahamson
- **Judges:** Louis J. Ceci
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657070

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting common fund when insurer refused insured’s offer of representation

## Opinion text

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). I
write to address a recurring issue faced by litigants and appellate courts: What is the standard of appellate review when the facts are uncontested and the decision turns on the legal effect of the facts? Stated another way, what is the standard of appellate review when the decision turns on the application of a legal standard to undisputed facts?
The boilerplate language, too often used by litigants and appellate courts, that application of a legal standard to undisputed facts is a question of law which an appellate court can decide independently without deference to the trial court, is, in my opinion, not necessarily correct in every instance. I conclude that the standard of appellate review depends on the nature of the issue involved. See Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis. 2d 144, 172, n.4 , 465 N.W.2d 812 (1991) (Abrahamson, J., dissenting); Mucha v. King, 792 F.2d 602, 604-606 (7th Cir. 1986); Lee, Principled Decision Making and the Proper Role of Fed *836 eral Appellate Courts: The Mixed Questions Conflict, 64 S. Calif. L. Rev. 235 (1991).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657070. Public record. Not legal advice.