Legal Opinion

Seefeldt v. Keske

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1961PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.

Defendant lessor contends on this appeal that it is well established by the decisions of this court that an option granted to a lessee to renew a lease, as distinguished from an option to extend, requires the execution of a new lease if the option is exercised. Since no new lease had been executed, it is argued that no option to purchase existed when plaintiff lessee attempted to exercise the option in the summer of 1960.

Some states do not distinguish between options to extend and options to renew a lease, and construe both as not requiring the execution of a new lease upon exercise of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Andrews v. Marshall Creamery Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  2. Kollock v. ScribnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Orton v. NoonanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  4. Ackerman v. LoforeseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  5. Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1921

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. DoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Thomas P. Krukowski and Ermina A. Krukowski v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
  3. Krukowski v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2000
  4. Michael F. Connor and Jane H. Connor v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
  5. Last v. PuehlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

5 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