Legal Opinion

Dusek v. Pierce County

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1969No. 225PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

On this appeal the plaintiff agrees that the trial judge would be correct if the action were in fact brought under sec. 81.15, Stats., which governs the bringing of actions against municipalities by reason of the “insufficiency” or “want of repair” of any highway which the town was bound to keep in repair. He acknowledges that the statute in that event requires actual written notice.

Plaintiff bases his argument on this court’s decision in Holytz v. Milwaukee (1962), 17 Wis. 2d 26, 115 N. W. 2d 618, which abrogated the doctrine of municipal immunity. He points out that sec. 81.15, Stats., was…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Firkus v. RombalskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Raisanen v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Stippich v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Loehe v. Village of Fox PointWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. C.L. v. OlsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Chart v. DvorakWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Schwartz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Allstate Insurance v. Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of County of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977

18 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