Legal Opinion
House of Stainless, Inc. v. Marshall & Ilsley Bank
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided January 18, 1977No. 75-95PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.
Two issues are raised on this appeal. We begin discussion with the first issue— whether plaintiff-respondent Stainless was entitled to bring this action in Wisconsin against defendant-appellant Marshall & Ilsley Bank.
CAPACITY TO SUE.
M & I Bank contends Stainless Steel is not entitled to bring this action in Wisconsin because it has no certificate of authority to transact business in this state. Sec. 180.847(1) Stats., requires a certificate of authority for such transacting of business. It is uncontroverted that Stainless had no such certificate.
Stainless claims a certificate of authority was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cheney Bros. Co. v. Commonwealth of MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Guy Martin Buick, Inc. v. Colorado Springs National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1974
- Browndale International, Ltd. v. Board of AdjustmentWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Chrysler Corp. v. Adamatic, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Galleon Industries, Inc. v. Lewyn MacHinery Co., Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In Re Shattuc Cable Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 1992
- Galey & Lord Inc. v. Arley Corp. (In Re Arlco, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1999
- Mediterranean Exports, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- B & P Lumber Co. v. First National Bank of AtlantaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Kennett-Murray & Co. v. Pawnee National BankCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.