Legal Opinion

Geldon v. Finnegan

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The principal contention made here is that the fire marshal and his deputies are quasi-judicial officers and are not liable for acts performed by them in the course of the discharge of their official duties, which involve a certain amount of discretion, so long as they act within their jurisdiction. A determination of the question raised requires a consideration of the statutes, secs. 200.19 to 200.21, the material parts of which are printed in the margin.1

*544It is the contention of the defendants that the deputy fire marshal, Finnegan, under the last clause of sec. 200.21 (1), was empowered to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Craker v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Bergeron v. PeytonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Rainer v. SchulteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
  5. State ex rel. Traister v. MahoneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Phillips v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State v. ZitoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
  3. Peloquin v. HibnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  4. SuperX Drugs of Kentucky, Inc. v. RiceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1977
  5. Vajner v. Orange VillageCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API