Legal Opinion

Geyso v. City of Cudahy

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 11, 1967PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

Two issues are raised by this appeal:

1. Are ordinances creating and increasing a monthly expense allowance and increasing a monthly stenographic allowance null and void because the creation and increase of such allowances constitutes an increase in salary prohibited by sec. 62.09 (6) (b) and sec. 66.196, Stats.?

2. Can the city of Cudahy pay out such allowances if there are no itemized statements or vouchers submitted demonstrating that the expenses actually were incurred ?

Secs. 62.09 (6) (b) and 66.196, Stats., prohibit increases in salary during the term in office of a city official. Nothing…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Peay v. NolanTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
  2. State ex rel. Weldon v. ThomasonTennessee Supreme Court · 1919
  3. State ex rel. Payne v. ReevesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921
  4. McCoy v. HandlinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Manning, Commissioner of Finance v. SimsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1948

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. In Re Advisory Opinion to the House of RepresentativesSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984
  2. Randolph v. GroscostArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Gename v. BensonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. State Ex Rel. Douglas v. BeermannNebraska Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Opinion No. Oag 28-76, (1976), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1976

11 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