Legal Opinion

Munninghoff v. Wisconsin Conservation Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 8, 1949PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.

First of all, the court has determined that jurisdiction under ch. 227, Stats., is proper.

It is admitted that the lands upon which Munninghoff desires to operate a muskrat farm are his own lands, and are located under the navigable waters of the Wisconsin river. These waters became navigable by the erection by the Rhine-lander Paper Company of a dam in the year 1906, which dam flooded the land in question and it has been flooded since that time.

The issues in this case are whether the Conservation Commission, pursuant to sec. 29.575, Stats., xan license privately owned lands lying under…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Willow River Club v. WadeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Diana Shooting Club v. HustingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Mundt v. Sheboygan & Fond du Lac RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Doemel v. JantzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Krenz v. NicholsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Marks v. WhitneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Tucker v. MarcusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Estate of Stanley G. Miller v. Diane StoreyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017
  4. People Ex Rel. Baker v. MacKCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  5. Day v. ArmstrongWyoming Supreme Court · 1961

13 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