Legal Opinion

Budke v. Holvick

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1949PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.

The notice of claim may, as appellants contend, be technically defective. Budke did not manually sign the copies of the notice which were delivered to defendants.

Appellants cite Voss v. Tittel (1935), 219 Wis. 175, 262 N. W. 579, 101 A. L. R. 722; Beyer v. Seymer (1946), 249 Wis. 257, 24 N. W. (2d) 616; and Olson v. Stella Cheese Co. (1948), 254 Wis 62, 35 N. W. (2d) 220, to establish that this court requires the statute to be complied with if one desires more than two years in which to bring his action and serve his complaint.

The statute is specific and requires notice to be given in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Voss v. TittelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Olson v. Stella Cheese Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Beyer v. SeymerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ausen v. MoriartyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Trapino v. TrapinoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Ullman v. FreyeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Burmek v. Miller Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Burmek v. Miller Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

2 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