State Highway Commission v. Grant
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.
It is apparent from a reading of the record, from the petition and appeal filed, and from the briefs in this court, that Cronin’s main objective throughout this proceeding has been to have a jury determination of the necessity of acquiring the lands in question. It has been his contention throughout that the lands are being acquired by the city of Janesville and that his constitutional rights have been violated because there has been no such jury determination.
His contention would be correct if the proceeding were by the city of Janesville. However, the determination of necessity was made by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fiorini v. City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Fuller v. Town Board of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- United States National Bank v. Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
3Cited by4 opinions
- Aero Auto Parts, Inc. v. State Department of TransportationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Redevelopment Authority v. CanepaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Grunwaldt v. State Highway CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- O'MARA v. Council of the City of NewarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965