Legal Opinion

Borden Co. v. McDowell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1959PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

For convenience we will speak as though there is only one action and one appeal before us.

Appellant’s first argument is that the action is not a proper one for declaratory judgment because the respondents have not yet been prosecuted for violation of the stat ute nor has appellant threatened them with prosecution. The appellant is duty-bound to enforce these statutes. That enforcement would greatly interfere with respondents’ marketing practices of long standing. In Petition of State ex rel. Attorney General (1936), 220 Wis. 25, 28, 264 N. W. 633, in taking jurisdiction, we said:

“The whole…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Nebbia v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Amsel v. BrooksSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  3. State ex rel. Kellogg v. CurrensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  4. State ex rel. Carnation Milk Products Co. v. EmeryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Kuhl Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin SystemWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State Ex Rel. Lynch v. ContaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Borden Company v. ThomasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1962
  4. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. La FolletteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Town of Ashwaubenon v. State Highway CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962

30 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