Legal Opinion

Hutt v. Lamont's Service, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 1965PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

“I care not who makes th’ laws iv a nation iv I can get out an injunction.”

—Mr. Dooley

The appellant urges that the extraordinary remedy of an injunction should not have been granted because there was an adequate remedy in law. Relief by way of an injunction, it is urged, is inappropriate when the issue is one of title to real estate. If a trespass has been committed, argues the appellant, ejectment would have been the proper remedy under Lipinski v. Lipinski (1952), 261 Wis. 327, 52 N. W. (2d) 922.

From the earliest of times, adjoining landowners have warred over lot lines. In Deuteronomy (ch.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Karns v. AllenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Mitchell Realty Co. v. City of West AllisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Walley v. PatakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Smith v. Congregation of St. RoseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Abdella v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State v. Quality Egg Farm, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API