Legal Opinion

Cunneen v. Kalscheuer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

The plaintiffs urge a number of irregularities in the proceedings of the town board, each of which has been considered and deemed so immaterial as not to merit treatment in the opinion. The defendants urge that the plaintiffs have no standing in court even though they are taxpayers; that as such they have shown no cause-of action in their favor; and that they cannot be heard to vindicate the rights of Stanley, Leslie, or John J. Farrell, especially in view of the fact that, John and Stanley have judgments against them upon the same issues, which judgments are of record in this case and stand…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Shotwell v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Fass v. SeehawerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Ransom v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
  4. Ballou v. ElderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
  5. Stifel v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Feldman v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
  2. Kultgen v. MuellerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Weintraut v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2016
  4. Alta V Limited Partnership, Transferee v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2020
  5. Loomis v. CallahanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

1 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