Legal Opinion

Niske v. Nackman

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1956PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.

The question presented is whether the broker is entitled to payment of the commission, he having submitted the prospect who bought the property from the owner, although the sale was not consummated until approximately four months after the listing contract had been terminated, and the owner having agreed that he would not sell the property to a prospect submitted directly or indirectly by the broker, and that if the broker sold the property directly or indirectly, the owner would pay the commission.

On this appeal the respondent, Albert Nackman, concedes that the listing agreement was valid…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dunn & Stringer Investment Co. v. KraussWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Grinde v. ChipmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Munson v. FurrerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  4. L. W. Smith & Co. v. RomadkaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Pallange v. MuellerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Mansfield v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Boutelle v. ChrislawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Peter M. Chalik & Associates v. HermesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Libowitz v. Lake Nursing Home, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Gilbert v. LudtkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API