Legal Opinion

Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Public Service Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1937PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

A proposition, whether in affirmative or interrogatory form, should be so phrased as to carry a true *288and complete meaning to those addressed. The voters of the city of Edgerton were asked to disclose their attitude toward the acquisition of a plant used for distribution of light, heat, and power. The rights and property were subject to purchase by the city, and the procedure was prescribed by statute. The utility company, by its acceptance of an indeterminate permit, is deemed to have consented to a purchase of its property actually used and useful for the convenience of the public by the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Fort AtkinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  2. State ex rel. Williams v. Sawyer CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Dagan v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Neacy v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Zwietusch v. Village of East MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Baird v. City of Webster CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
  2. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API