Legal Opinion

McMahon v. Lower Baraboo River Drainage District

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.

The trial court was of the opinion that the drainage district in constructing its works is performing a governmental function (Hart v. Neillsville, 125 Wis. 546, 552, 553, 104 N. W. 699), and that the situation as presented by the facts in this case is clearly distinguishable from the facts set forth in Hart v. Neillsville, 141 Wis. 3, 123 N. W. 125, where a municipality was held liable for failure to properly construct a surface-water drain, and therefore held that the district was not liable.

It is very clear from a reading of the drainage law under which this district was organized — secs.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Strawberry Hill Land Corp. v. StarbuckSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
  2. Sullivan v. School District No. 1 of the City of TomahWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Hart v. City of NeillsvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Hart v. City of NeillsvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Ward v. BabcockWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lower Baraboo River Drainage District v. SchirmerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Koshkonong Mud Creek Drainage District v. BodemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Rusk Farm Drainage District v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  4. In re Dancy Drainage DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Trinity Petroleum, Inc. v. Scott Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2006

3 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