Legal Opinion

Kleiner v. City of Milwaukee

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1955PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.

The plaintiff contends that retroactive legislation of a remedial nature is not repugnant to the constitution. She claims further that the purpose of the legislation was remedial or procedural. On the other hand, it is contended that a retroactive law which impairs the obligation of a contract or which interferes with vested rights is unconstitutional as a taking of property without due process of law.

The issue to be resolved is whether ch. 397 is remedial or procedural legislation, or whether it is a retroactive law that impairs the obligation of a contract or interferes with vested rights.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Thomson v. GiesselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Tiffany v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  3. State Ex Rel. Smith v. Annuity & Pension BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Lenfesty v. City of Eau ClaireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Columbia Casualty Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Douglas County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Opinion No. Oag 64-80, (1980), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1980
  3. State Ex Rel. Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. NollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State Ex Rel. Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. NollWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API