Pipkorn v. Village of Brown Deer
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPIallows, J.
The only question before us is whether the defendant Sontag can be designated to represent the other beneficiaries of the water trust who are similarly situated so as to constitute this a class action. When Green Knoll subdivision was laid out, a water trust was created for the benefit of the lot owners. They became beneficiaries of the trust and the owners of fractional shares thereof, entitled to use water from the system for domestic purposes. The trust declaration provided the trust could be terminated by a transfer of the assets by the trustee upon the approval of the owners of the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Board of Comm'rs of Jackson Cty. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Bernheimer v. ConverseSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Harris v. LarsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Schlosser v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Mercury Records Productions, Inc. v. Economic Consultants, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
- Browne v. Milwaukee Board of School DirectorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Lozoff v. KaisershotWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.