Legal Opinion

Coyle v. Richter

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1931PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The plaintiff’s failure to make the city a party to this action created the difficulty which resulted in the ruling of the trial court of which appellant complains. That a cause of action exists in favor of the municipality seems clear. The facts in this case bring it within the rule laid down in Neacy v. Drew, 176 Wis. 348, 187 N. W. 218. Taxpayers may bring suits to recover property or money belonging to the municipality or to enforce any cause of action belonging to the municipality. This class of actions is for the public benefit. They are favored because of the beneficent public purpose…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. McIntyreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Osburn v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Mahr v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  4. Neacy v. DrewWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Moore v. HeldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Feen v. RayIllinois Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Elview Construction Co. v. North Scott Community School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1985
  3. City of Appleton v. Town of MenashaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Stuart v. City of NeenahWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Schulz v. KisslingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938

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