Legal Opinion

Matczak v. Mathews

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1953PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.

The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to maintain his action against the defendant city by reason of the provisions of sec. 270.58, Stats., which provides as follows:

“Where the defendant in any action, writ, or special proceeding, except in actions for false arrest, is a public officer and is proceeded against in his official capacity and the jury or the court finds that he acted in good faith the judgment as to damages and costs entered against the officer shall be paid by the state or political subdivision of which he is an officer.”

Counsel for plaintiff rely strongly upon our decision…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Larson v. LesterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Heffernan v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Fiala v. VoightWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Rogers v. City of OconomowocWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. State Ex Rel. Klingler & Schilling v. BairdWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Kagel v. BruggerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

7 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