Legal Opinion

Flottum v. City of Cumberland

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1940PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The plaintiffs bring this action as taxpayers of the city of Cumberland on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The facts cannot be better presented than by repeating the findings of the trial court, which will be stated in a slightly abbreviated and supplemented form. The city of Cumberland, a city of the fourth, class, has never granted an indeterminate permit to any private utility, and has for thirty-three years owned and operated the only electric-distributing plant within said city, and until about the year 1918 generated its electrical energy by means of a steam…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Payne v. City of RacineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Franklin v. HortonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
  3. Appleton Waterworks Co. v. City of AppletonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Heider v. City of WauwatosaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Aqua-Tech, Inc. v. Como Lake Protection & Rehabilitation DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Interstate Power Co. v. Town of McGregorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
  4. Waste Management, Inc. Ex Rel. Waste Management, Inc. Boeing v. Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling AuthorityWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Otey v. Common Council of City of MilwaukeeDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1968

14 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