Legal Opinion
Krause v. Holand
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided January 3, 1967PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.
When one has clearly established the terms of his contract to buy real estate, he is entitled to specific performance which is not to be denied by judicial arbitrariness. Heins v. Thompson & Flieth Lumber Co. (1917), 165 Wis. 563, 573, 163 N. W. 173. However, if the essential terms of the contract are not established with clarity, it is a proper prerogative of a court of equity to deny specific performance. In Fontaine v. Riley (1926), 189 Wis. 226, 235, 207 N. W. 256, the court said:
“However, a contract of this kind requires not only a reasonably accurate description in order that specific…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wiegand v. GissalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Kuester v. RowlandsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
- Spence v. FrantzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Gerruth Realty Co. v. PireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Heins v. Thompson & Flieth Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Metropolitan Ventures, LLC v. GEA AssociatesWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- Edlin v. SoderstromWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Anderson v. OnsagerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1990
- Nodolf v. NelsonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
- Highlands Plaza, Inc. v. Viking Investment Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.