Sehlin v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
It is unnecessary to determine in this proceeding whether plaintiffs actually acquired the right to the claim by operation of law or by assignment.
The claim denied by the legislature, which denial constitutes the basis of plaintiffs’ right to maintain this action, states that plaintiffs “purchased and acquired the interest of A. A. Prendergast & Associates and Industrial Contracting-Company named as parties of the second part in said contract,” and assert their right to amounts claimed to be due on the contract “as assignees of the parties of the second part.”
As was pointed out by the court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- State ex rel. Martin v. ReisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Binsfeld v. Home Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Department of Public Instruction v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Weis v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin SystemDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2011
- CleanSoils Wisconsin, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1999
- Fredrickson v. KabatWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- (1973), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.