Legal Opinion

Riley v. Town of Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided December 7, 1989No. 89-0155PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEich, C.J.

William and Susan Riley appeal from a judgment dismissing their inverse condemnation action against the Town of Hamilton and La Crosse County (collectively "the county").

Section 32.10, Stats., allows "the owner" of property occupied, but not condemned, by one possessing the power of condemnation, to commence inverse condemnation proceedings seeking deunages for the talking. We eue asked on this appeeil to decide whether the Rileys, who owned the property at the time the damage was sustained, but who were not the record owners at the time the action was commenced, may maintain the suit. We…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Grams v. BossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Securities Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
  3. James A. Murray, Justin L. Murray and Joan M. Murray v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
  4. Minuteman, Inc. v. AlexanderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Lacey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Waushara County v. GrafWisconsin Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. AllenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Richards v. Land Star Group, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1999
  4. State v. GoetzCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  5. Benjamin Plumbing, Inc. v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1990

3 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