Bollhoffer v. Wolke
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.
We note at the outset that the record does not show that the attorney general was served with a copy of the proceeding in this case. Whenever a declaratory judgment action is brought challenging the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, the attorney general must be served with copies of the proceedings, as required by sec. 269.56 (11), Stats.:
“. . . [I]f the statute, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.”
Since sec. 269.56 (15), Stats., directs uniformity of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pressman v. State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Cummings v. ShippTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
- Parr v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1938
- McCabe v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
- Jefferson County Fiscal Court v. TragerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- William B. Tanner Co. v. Estate of FesslerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
- Oklahoma Tax Commission v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
- Tobin v. PurselWyoming Supreme Court · 1975
- Harris v. ReivitzCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
- Sendak v. DebroIndiana Supreme Court · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.