Legal Opinion

S & M Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. Baer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1977No. 75-315PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.

Two issues are presented on appeal:

1. Does the second amended third-party complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for a money judgment based upon unjust enrichment against D&E?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying S & M’s motion for summary judgment upon Baer’s counterclaim?

Third-Party Complaint

The trial court concluded that the second amended third-party complaint sufficiently states a cause of action in equity for unjust enrichment. The elements of such an action are:

“(1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) an appreciation…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Seegers v. SpragueWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Utschig v. McCloneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. GEBHARDT BROS., INC. v. BrimmelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Nelson v. PrestonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal CraftersCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
  2. DCB Construction Co. v. Central City Development Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  3. Axenics, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
  4. Gee v. EberleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Puttkammer v. MinthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978

36 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