Legal Opinion

City of Milwaukee v. Taylor

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1938PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

By paragraph 1 of the complaint in City of Milwaukee v. Ticonic Investment Company it is alleged that plaintiff has decided that it is necessary to take by eminent domain under ch. 275, Laws of 1931, the following-described property to complete the widening of East and West Kilbourn avenue between North Ninth street and North Prospect avenue and including a part of Juneau park by widening West Kilbourn avenue between North Sixth street and North Ninth street and East Kilbourn avenue between North Broadway and North Prospect avenue and including a part of Juneau park in the Third and Fourth…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Allis v. WiesnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Village of Bangor v. Hussa Canning & Pickle Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Ela v. WelchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Lamasco Realty Co. v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Union Cemetery v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  3. City of Plymouth v. ElsnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  4. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Duncan Development Corp. v. Crestview Sanitary DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

23 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