# Vollmer v. Luety

> Wisconsin Supreme Court · June 26, 1990 · 156 Wis. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676549

## Case

- **Full name:** Georgia Ann VOLLMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTEE COMPANY, a Maryland Company, Plaintiff, v. Paul LUETY, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, a Wisconsin Corporation, Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners
- **Court:** Wisconsin Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 26, 1990
- **Citations:** 156 Wis. 2d 1; 456 N.W.2d 797; 1990 Wisc. LEXIS 268
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bablitch
- **Judges:** Heffernan, Abrahamson, Bablitch
- **Cited by:** 153 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/9676549

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “‘[o]ne of the rules of well nigh universal application established by courts in the administration of the law is that questions not raised and properly presented for review in the [circuit] court will not be reviewed on appeal’” (quoted source omitted)
- explaining that this court has the power to reverse “when the real controversy has not been fully tried”
- discussing the importance of providing specific objections at trial both to allow the trial court the opportunity to evaluate issues when possible errors may be corrected, and to preserve issues for appeal

## Opinion text

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(concurring). I join the majority opinion. I write separately only to answer the concurring opinion.
The author of the concurring opinion continues to insist, as she did in State v. Wyss, 124 Wis. 2d 681 , 370 N.W.2d 745 (1985), that the court of appeals may rely on any of three grounds for reversing a judgment under sec. 752.35, Stats.
This case affirms Wyss and State v. Schumacher, 144 Wis. 2d 388 , 424 N.W.2d 672 (1988). Both cases, as *27 well as this majority opinion, state unequivocally that there are only two grounds for the court of appeals to reverse a judgment under sec. 752.35, Stats.: 1) when the real controversy has not been fully tried; or, 2) when it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried and the appellate court can conclude that a new trial would probably produce a different result.
The concurrence, if not answered, could well produce confusion among the bar and the lower courts. The author of the concurring opinion urged in Wyss that a third ground of reversal be adopted, the common law, namely the integrity of the fact-finding process test. Her position was rejected. See Note, State v. Wyss: A New Appellate Standard for Granting New Trials in the Interest of Justice, 1987 Wis. L. Rev. 171 . We continue to reject it.
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE NATHAN S. HEFFERNAN, JUSTICES ROLAND B. DAY, WILLIAM G. CALLOW, DONALD W. STEINMETZ AND LOUIS J. CECI join in this concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676549. Public record. Not legal advice.