Federal Paving Corp. v. City of Wauwatosa
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
Defendant contends, (1) that upon the previous appeal it was held that defendant was prohibited *657from contracting with plaintiff for the reason that it did not properly advertise, for bids; and (2) that being prohibited from contracting except in a specified way, the plaintiff may not recover upon a theory of unjust enrichment.
It was the holding of this court upon the former appeal, from which the writer of this opinion- dissented, that full satisfaction of the requirements of sec. 62.15 (3), Stats., was a prerequisite to- a valid contract, and that the city was prohibited from entering the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Zottman v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Chippewa Bridge Co. v. City of DurandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Shulse v. City of MayvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Eau Claire Dells Improvement Co. v. City of Eau ClaireWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Village of McFarland v. Town of DunnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Federal Paving Corp. v. PrudischWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Probst v. City of MenashaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
- Ellerbe & Co. v. City of HudsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- State Ex Rel. Federal Paving Corp. v. PrudischWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.