Legal Opinion

Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1957PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinle, J.

The defendant contends that-since the trial court by its judgment complied exactly with the mandate of *482this court which directed only that the trial court determine the extent of time as to which the restrictive covenant is reasonable and necessary for plaintiff’s protection, and the enjoining of the defendant from breach of the covenant, it has fulfilled its duty under the law and that it is powerless to properly entertain consideration of the damage issue raised under the pleadings. In support of this position the defendant relied upon sec. 274.35 (1), Stats., and also upon many texts and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wright v. ScottonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1923
  2. McLennan v. ChurchWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  3. My Laundry Co. v. SchmelingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Mitchell Realty Co. v. City of West AllisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Patten Paper Co. v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Streiff v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Star Direct, Inc. v. Dal PraWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Mulder v. MittelstadtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
  4. State ex rel. J. H. Findorff & Son, Inc. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. Excel Management Services, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983

26 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