Legal Opinion

Foreway Express, Inc. v. City of Hilbert

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1966PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The complaint to which the defendant demurred does not allege that a claim was presented as required by sec. 62.25 (1) (a), Stats. Although this section relates to claims against cities, it is expressly made applicable to villages by sec. 61.51 (4), and we take judicial notice that Hilbert is a village. State of Wisconsin 1966 Blue Book, 620; Milwaukee v. Sewerage Comm. (1954), 268 Wis. 342, 353, 67 N. W. (2d) 624; Smith v. Janesville (1881), 52 Wis. 680, 9 N. W. 789.

In view of the statutory requirement that “no action shall be maintained” until the claimant “shall first present his claim to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pattermann v. City of WhitewaterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. City of Milwaukee v. Sewerage CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Firemen's Insurance v. Washburn CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Moyer v. City of OshkoshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Smith v. City of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Raisanen v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Binder v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Schwartz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Armes v. Kenosha CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Sambs v. NowakWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

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