Legal Opinion

City of Milwaukee v. Schomberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1952PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.

In their counterclaim defendants allege (1) that plaintiff is attempting to take defendants’ property for *168private rather than public purposes, (2) the existence of a contract under the terms of which plaintiff agreed to refrain from opening streets through defendants’ property, and (3) threatened trespass on defendants’ land for the purpose of installing sewers and other public services prior' to condemnation.

We will consider these propositions in reverse order. Defendants claim that the city, pursuant to notices sent to them, threatens to enter upon the land before the condemnation…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wilton v. County St. JohnsSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
  2. Riden v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. R.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
  3. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. City of BoonvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden-Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Titusville Amusement Co. v. Titusville Iron Works Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Condemnation of 110 Washington Street Ex Rel. Redevelopment Authority of MontgomeryCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Negus v. Madison Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  3. City of Wilmington ex rel. Water Department v. LordSuperior Court of Delaware · 1975
  4. Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C. v. Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal AuthorityColorado Court of Appeals · 2006
  5. Andrews v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2008

3 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