Legal Opinion · Dissent

ADMANCO, Inc. ex rel. Polsky v. 700 Stanton Drive, LLC

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 2010No. 2007AP2791Published

1DissentN. Patrick Crooks, J.

¶ 67. {dissenting). Who needs the legislature when we have this majority? Essentially, the majority does not appear to like the cap in Wis. Stat. § 128.17(2) limiting landlord claims for rent in receivership proceedings, so it writes its way around it. In so doing, the majority fails to honor the principles underlying receivership proceedings in Wisconsin and demolishes the utility of § 128.17(2), which is designed to compensate a landlord for loss of rent while preventing a claim for prospective rent so large that it would deplete an estate in receivership to the detriment of unsecured…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  2. In the Matter of Compton Corp., Debtor. Walter Kellogg, Trustee v. Blue Quail Energy, Inc., and Mbank Abilene, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
  3. In Re: Kaiser Group International Inc., Debtor International Finance Corporation v. Kaiser Group International Inc., Frank J. Perch, Iii, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
  4. In Re Air Conditioning, Inc. Of Stuart, Debtor. American Bank of Martin County, Douglass E. Wendel, Trustee v. Leasing Service CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
  5. Oldden v. Tonto Realty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944

22 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