Legal Opinion

Smith v. City of Whitewater

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1947PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRector, J.

The respondent advances the contention that the cause is moot. It is said that the 1946-1947 license year for which Whitinger’s license was issued has now expired, and that any controversy as to whether that license may properly be transferred is now ended. The order of February 17, 1947, setting aside the ex parte dissolution and reinstating the injunction nunc pro tunc as of December 10th, carried $10 motion costs in favor of the respondent. A reversal of the order would absolve the appellants from the payment of such costs. The matter of costs has on several occasions been considered as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Runge v. AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  2. State ex rel. Conlin v. Mayor of WausauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Supreme Court of Independent Order of Foresters of Canada v. Supreme Court of the United Order of ForestersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. State ex rel. Treat v. HammelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Ruffalo v. Common Council of the City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Marquette Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Village of Twin LakesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Variance, Inc. v. LosinskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Smith v. City of WhitewaterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Sprecher v. Weston's Bar, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1971

6 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