property. This testimony suggests that the flooding Zink experienced may have been caused by other events and not by the actions of the bog's owner. ¶ 10. The court also heard testimony from an engineer who was hired by Zink to analyze the drainage of surface water from Zink's property and the cranberry marsh. After the engineer admitted that the model he used to conduct his analysis was intended to be used on discernable waterways instead of standing surface water, and that he had to "assume" a flow of water in order to apply the model to the surface water on Zink's land, the court found that his study "lack[ed] credibility" and "fail[ed] to establish the proposition for which it [was] offered." See Schorer v. Schorer, 177 Wis. 2d 387, 396-97, 501 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11. Based on the testimony of these
holding that it is the exclusive province of the judge in nonjury trials to assess the credibility of witnesses and to assign weight to their testimony holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses