Legal Opinion
Probst v. City of Menasha
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided February 15, 1944PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosenbekky, C. J.
The facts are not in substantial dispute. In response to an advertisement for bids by the defendant the plaintiff submitted a proposal for the construction of new sidewalks and for the repair of old sidewalks in the city of Menasha. The proposal was'as follows:
“We hereby propose to furnish and provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment and all other appurtenances necessary for the construction of new sidewalks and for the repair of present sidewalks on various streets as designated by the street committee of the city of Menasha. This bid is made in accordance with the advertisement,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Shulse v. City of MayvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Federal Paving Corp. v. City of WauwatosaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- L. G. Arnold, Inc. v. City of HudsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Journal Printing Co. v. City of RacineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kocinski v. Home Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1990
- Hocking v. City of DodgevilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
- Perlera v. Vining Disposal Service, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
- Thomsen-Abbott Construction Co. v. City of WausauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Town of Salem v. Kenosha CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.