Legal Opinion

Federal Paving Corp. v. City of Wauwatosa

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1939PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Zottman v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Chippewa Bridge Co. v. City of DurandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Shulse v. City of MayvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. 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

  1. Village of McFarland v. Town of DunnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Federal Paving Corp. v. PrudischWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Probst v. City of MenashaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Ellerbe & Co. v. City of HudsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. State Ex Rel. Federal Paving Corp. v. PrudischWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942

8 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