Ballstadt v. Pagel
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
The first contention made here on behalf of the defendant is that the district in question is not a residential district. The facts with respect to this are so fully set out in the findings of the court that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. From the photographs, maps, and evidence offered upon the trial we conclude that the findings of the trial court are fully sustained both as to the character of the nuisance sought to be enjoined as well as the finding relating to the character of the district in which the property is situated.
We come, therefore, to a consideration of the only…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cunningham v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Wasilewski v. BiedrzyckiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- George v. GoodovichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
3Cited by7 opinions
- Prah v. MarettiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Hasslinger v. Village of HartlandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Dolata v. Berthelet Fuel & Supply Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Krueger v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1982
- State Ex Rel. City of Algoma v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.