Legal Opinion

Superior Plumbing Co. v. Tefs

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1965PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The owner, defendant-appellant, contends that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action; the subcontractor, plaintiff-respondent, asserts it states a cause of action for unjust enrichment.

The complaint does not allege an express contract between the owner and the subcontractor; nor does it make reference to the filing or prosecution of a subcontractor’s lien as provided by sec. 289.02, Stats.

The defendant relies upon the decisions of this court in Utschig v. McClone (1962), 16 Wis. (2d) 506, 114 N. W. (2d) 854, and Limbach v. Schmalz (1932), 208 Wis. 396, 243 N.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Utschig v. McCloneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Nelson v. PrestonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Kelley Lumber Co. v. WoelfelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Ponti v. EckelsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Limbach v. SchmalzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Puttkammer v. MinthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Green Quarries, Inc. v. RaaschMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. S & M Rotogravure Service, Inc. v. BaerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Seegers v. SpragueWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Padilla v. BydalekWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

12 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