Collins v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
Judge Zick’s stipulated penalty for settling a case violates the court’s long-standing policy in favor of settlements and is not permitted as within the “inherent authority” of the court.
Bisone v. Bisone
The fact that the trial court used a computer program is not an abuse of discretion. The trial court may take judicial notice of tax tables and tax laws.
In Re Marriage of Trieschmann v. Trieschmann
Trial court did not exercise its discretion when its “decision” only adopted wife’s memorandum to the court as its decision.
In Re Paternity of C.A.S. & C.D.S.
Circuit court has statutory authority to do all things necessary and proper to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of its orders. Thus, court properly issued injunction to protect the children. Rights of the children are paramount in all actions affecting the family. Injunction was properly tailored to the necessities of the particular case.
In Re Marriage of Koeller v. Koeller
Court’s powers are limited to those conferred by statute – therefore, the court cannot order a future change in custody premised on circumstance which might occur in the future.
In Re Marriage of Zabel v. Zabel
Circuit court has the authority to join third parties for certain equitable claims where joinder is necessary to a just and complete adjudication of the cause. Right to jury does not extend to equity.
In Re Marriage of Hughes v. Hughes
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in not permitting child to testify. Trial court has the discretion of determining how to inform itself of the child’s preference, including not permitting the child to testify if not in the child’s best interests to do so.
Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund v. Physicians Ins. Co.
“… no witness may testify as an expert on issues of domestic law; “the only `expert’ on domestic law is the court.”
In Re Marriage of Garceau v. Garceau
Trial court should not hold open division of retirement until termination of employment. Prolonging asset division does not promote judicial administration and it is not in the parties’ best interests to drag out the divorce.
In Re Marriage of Washington v. Washington
Trial court can clarify ambiguous provision of divorce judgment without violating prohibition against modification Trial courts have authority to do all things “necessary and proper” to carry out its orders and judgments.