Legal Opinion

Klapinski v. Polewski

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1963PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The plaintiff based his cause of action upon a written listing agreement which he annexed to his complaint. The listing agreement meets the requirements of sec. 240.10, Stats. It contains a provision that the owner will pay a commission under the following circumstances:

“If a sale or exchange is made or a purchaser procured therefor by you, by the undersigned, or by any other, at the price and upon the terms specified herein, or at any other terms and price accepted by the undersigned, during the life of this contract, or if sold or exchanged within six (6) months after the termination hereof…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dunn & Stringer Investment Co. v. KraussWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Gummer v. Trustees of OmroWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Gratz v. ParkerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Strehlau v. John Schroeder Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Rohr v. Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Seraphine v. HardimanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Radloff v. National Food Stores, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Heritage Mutual Insurance v. ThomaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Krueger v. WintersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

5 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