Legal Opinion

Lang v. City of Cumberland

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1962PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

Sec. 81.15, Stats., requires that no action for damages resulting from insufficiency of a highway shail be maintained unless a prescribed notice be given within thirty days after the event causing the damage. In the case of a city, notice must be given to the mayor or city clerk. It must be in writing and signed by the party, his agent, or attorney, and must supply information specified in the statute.

In this case the injured person was eleven years of age. The affidavits state that her father gave oral notice to the mayor of all matters required by the statute. The oral notice was given…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. McDonald v. City of Spring ValleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Murphy v. . Village of Fort EdwardNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  4. Russo v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  5. Park Building Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Stanhope v. Brown CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  2. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Mannino v. DavenportWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State Ex Rel. Unnamed Person No.1 v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Felder v. CaseyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987

16 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