Legal Opinion

Bollhoffer v. Wolke

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1974No. 354PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Pressman v. State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  2. Cummings v. ShippTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Parr v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  4. McCabe v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  5. 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

  1. William B. Tanner Co. v. Estate of FesslerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  3. Tobin v. PurselWyoming Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Harris v. ReivitzCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
  5. Sendak v. DebroIndiana Supreme Court · 1976

4 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