Legal Opinion

Oeland v. Woldenberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

The removal by defendants of the wooden building in question from one portion of the lot to another and the replacing of it, in so far as it was charged to be a violation of city ordinances, is primarily the proper subject of prosecution by the city authorities. Waupun v. Moore, 34 Wis. 450.

The allegation in the complaint to the effect “that, if said building is moved to its proposed location, it will constitute a continuing fire menace to the said Hawthorne Apartments and to the interests of plaintiff,” when considered in connection with other facts therein recited, may be construed as…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Button v. HoffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Tilly v. Mitchell & Lewis Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Holzbauer v. RitterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. President of Waupun v. MooreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Anstee v. Monroe Light & Fuel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Milwaukee Toy Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Marshfield Clinic v. DoegeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Bembinster v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Lee v. Threshermen's Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Campfire Land Co. v. JolinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

2 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