State v. Kort
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.
Like an old-fashioned milking stool, this criminal conviction rests upon three legs: (1) The statute setting the compensation for town supervisors; (2) a 1915 decision of this court holding: “Expenses are not allowed to town supervisors by any statute”; 2 and (3) the statute making it a criminal offense for a public officer to do an act “which he knows is in excess of his lawful authority or which he knows . . . is forbidden by law.” 3 For the conviction to stand, each leg of the stool must bear its share of the weight. They do not, and the conviction falls.
Fitting together the two statutes…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Earhart v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- Spearman v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
- Milwaukee County v. HalseyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Russ v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Appleton v. Transportation CommissionCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
- State v. SchmitCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
- State v. SchmitCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983