Legal Opinion
Boerschinger v. Elkay Enterprises, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1965PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
The principal reason stated by the trial judge in sustaining the demurrer of the municipal defendants was his opinion that the title to public office could not be tried in a declaratory-judgment action but must be by quo warranto by the attorney general in the name of the state.
Generally speaking, quo warranto is the proper and exclusive remedy to try title to office.
The plaintiffs contend that questions of title to office in this action are only ancillary to the principal cause of declaring the authority to build and operate an additional slaughterhouse and rendering plant to be invalid and…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Ekern v. McGovernWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank of ShullsburgWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- McArthur v. MoffetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Sohns v. JensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Recall Bennett Committee v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1952
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wisconsin Ass'n of Food Dealers v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- State Ex Rel. First National Bank of Wisconsin Rapids v. M & I Peoples Bank of ColomaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- City of Waukesha v. SalbashianWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
- Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. I. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Boerschinger v. Elkay Enterprises, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.