Legal Opinion

Polanski v. Town of Eagle Point

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1966PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

In response to the town’s demurrer, the administrator asserts two reasons why the statute of limitations is not applicable: (1) That the town’s possession of the property was permissive, not adverse, and (2) that it was beyond the legislatively delegated powers of the town to possess the property, and, therefore, in a legal sense, it could not be in possession or occupancy of the property so as to create an adverse use. We disagree with each of these contentions.

Was the township’s possession adverse to Polanski and his heirs?

It appears that plaintiff argues that the possession was not adverse…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Curtis v. La Grande Hydraulic Water Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Smith v. SherryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Sydnor v. PalmerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Burkhardt v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. McCann v. WelchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Uhls v. State Ex Rel. City of CheyenneWyoming Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Drake v. Milwaukee Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Estate of Stone v. HansonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1993
  4. Western Fertilizer & Cordage Co. v. City of AllianceNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Lindl v. OzanneCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1978

8 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