Legal Opinion

Christie v. Lueth

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1953PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The first contention to be dealt with on this appeal, as stated by plaintiff-appellant, is that the resolution violates the constitutions of the state and nation because it is a bill of attainder, forbidden by such constitutions, in that it affects only one person and directs proceedings against him. Appellant cites Cummings v. Missouri (1866), 71 U. S. 277 (4 Wall.), 18 L. Ed. 356, on this point but the citation does not sustain him. The case’s headnote definition is, “A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.” The opinion, page 323, goes…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cummings v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  3. State ex rel. Rose v. Superior Court of Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Rosenberg v. Village of Whitefish BayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Madison Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wisconsin Bingo Supply & Equipment Co. v. Wisconsin Bingo Control BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Forest County v. GoodeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State Ex Rel. Richey v. Neenah Police & Fire CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Town of Blooming Grove v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Salerno v. City of RacineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

6 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