Legal Opinion

Estate of Shinoe v. Shinoe

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1933PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The appellant’s contentions are that: (1) The alleged agreement was not proved; (2) The claimant’s possession was not such as to entitle him to the remedy of specific performance; (3) The remedy of specific performance is barred by the statute of limitation and laches; (4) The remedy of specific performance should be denied because of inequitable conduct of the claimant; (5) The trial court erred in not awarding a larger amount due the estate upon the counterclaim.(1) The only evidence tending to support the county judge’s finding that the contract was made may be summarized as follows: Mr.…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Watts v. JohnsonTexas Supreme Court · 1849
  2. Twiss v. GeorgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Williamson v. NeevesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Blanchard v. McDougalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
  5. Wright v. BrooksMontana Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Commerce Insurance Co. v. Merrill Gas Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Kiernan v. CreechAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Estate of RosenthalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Drexler v. ZohlenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Krause v. HolandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

4 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