Legal Opinion

Forseth v. Sweet

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 1968PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

The appellant’s principal argument (conceding, arguendo, the right of the state to preserve its immunity from suit) is simply that the legislature has in fact spelled out a method or procedure for suing the state. For the purpose of this argument, the appellant concedes that art. IV, sec. 27, is not self-executing, but she contends that the legislature has implemented it. That section of the constitution provides:

“The legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the state.”

Appellant starts also from the premise, admittedly correct since Holytz…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. State Ex Rel. Reynolds v. ZimmermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Outagamie County v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Houston v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Brown v. Wichita State UniversitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  2. Kitto v. Minot Park DistrictNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Krause v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Sambs v. City of BrookfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Lyon v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 2000

27 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