Legal Opinion

Fischer v. Landisch

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1931PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

Sub. (1), sec. 101.31, Wisconsin Statutes, reads as follows:

“No person doing business in this state shall use the term ‘architect’ as a part of his business name or title or in any way represent himself to be an architect, without a certificate of registration, as provided in this section.”

It is defendant’s contention that plaintiff, who concededly was not a registered architect, by assuming to do work usually performed by an architect, brought himself within the operation of this section and is not entitled to recover compensation for services of an architectural character. We cannot agree…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sherwood v. WiseWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Hickey v. SuttonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Madison v. Frank Lloyd Wright FoundationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Dick Weatherston's Associated Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  3. Clark v. EadsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
  4. Adams v. FeigesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. McGill v. CarlosGuernsey County Court of Common Pleas · 1947

1 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