Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1893–1992 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Menominee River Boom Co. v. Augustus Spies Lumber & Cedar Co.green2 sentences1958Co. (1911), 147 Wis. 559, 571 , 132 N. W. 1118 : “ ‘A contract made in violation of a statute or for performance of an act which is prohibited by statute is void and will not be enforced by the court. 1958Co. (1911), 147 Wis. 559, 571 , 132 N. W. 1118 : “ ‘A contract made in violation of a statute or for performance of an act which is prohibited by statute is void and will not be enforced by the court. | 1 | 5 |
Waskey v. Hammergreen1 sentence1986See Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U.S. 85, 94 (1912). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perma-Stone Corp. v. Merkel
green
2 sentences1992The supreme court disagreed, stating: "This court has stated that a contract made in violation of statute is void, whether there is a prohibition and a penalty of merely a penalty." 6 Id. at 117 , 202 N.W.2d at 734, citing Perma-Stone Corp. v. Merkel, 255 Wis. *339 565, 39 N.W.2d 730 (1949), and Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. 1973Perma-Stone Corp. v. Merkel (1949), 255 Wis. 565 , 39 N. W. 2d 730 ; Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. | 2 | 1973–1992 |
Guardian Agency, Inc. v. Guardian Mutual Savings Bank
neutral
2 sentences1992Savings Bank, 227 Wis. 550 , 279 N.W. 79 (1938). 1992Savings Bank, 227 Wis. 550 , 279 N.W. 79 (1938). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Vic Hansen & Sons, Inc. v. Crowley
green
1 sentence1992The supreme court disagreed, stating: "This court has stated that a contract made in violation of statute is void, whether there is a prohibition and a penalty of merely a penalty." 6 Id. at 117 , 202 N.W.2d at 734, citing Perma-Stone Corp. v. Merkel, 255 Wis. *339 565, 39 N.W.2d 730 (1949), and Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
President of Kilbourn City v. Southern Wisconsin Power Co.
green
1 sentence1987The supreme court held that the rate schedules and the predecessor to sec. 196.22, Stats., rendered the contract unenforceable and rejected the municipality’s estoppel argument, stating: "The rule invoked [estoppel] has no application to a contract made in violation of a statute [prohibiting public utilities from charging more or less than its filed tariffs] and that is therefore in contravention of the lawfully declared public policy of the state.” Id. at 183, 135 N.W. at 505 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Zottman v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences1957Zottman v. San Francisco, supra [ 20 Cal. 96 ]; Tiedeman, Mun. 1957Zottman v. San Francisco, supra [ 20 Cal. 96 ]; Tiedeman, Mun. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Buckingham Radio Corp. v. Persion Furniture Co.
neutral
2 sentences1936The decision in Buckingham Radio Corp. v. Persion F. Co. 191 Wis. 391 , 211 N. W. 269 (which is relied upon by the plaintiff), is not in conflict with that rule because in that case the unlicensed foreign corporation’s title and right to possession of the property which it replevined were not based upon a contract made in violation of sec. 226.02, Stats. 1936The decision in Buckingham Radio Corp. v. Persion F. Co. 191 Wis. 391 , 211 N. W. 269 (which is relied upon by the plaintiff), is not in conflict with that rule because in that case the unlicensed foreign corporation’s title and right to possession of the property which it replevined were not based upon a contract made in violation of sec. 226.02, Stats. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Michener v. Watts
green
2 sentences1929As this act involves purely business transactions, and affects only money interests, we think it should be construed as rendering contracts made in violation of it unlawful and unenforceable at the instance of the offending party only, but not as designed to take away the rights of innocent parties who may have dealt with the offenders in ignorance of their having violated the statute.” In Michener v. Watts, 176 Ind. 376 , 96 N. E. 127 , 36 L. 1929As this act involves purely business transactions, and affects only money interests, we think it should be construed as rendering contracts made in violation of it unlawful and unenforceable at the instance of the offending party only, but not as designed to take away the rights of innocent parties who may have dealt with the offenders in ignorance of their having violated the statute.” In Michener v. Watts, 176 Ind. 376 , 96 N. E. 127 , 36 L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Cohn v. Heimbauch
neutral
2 sentences1904As observed in the case of Cohn v. Heimbauch, 86 Wis. 176 , 56 N. W. 638 : “The courts will neither enforce nor set aside a contract which is illegal (and npt fraudulent) from being made on Sunday.” This is upon the principle that purity in the administration of the law forbids courts from entertaining a suit upon a cause of action arising out of a contract in violation of a statute, or which is void as against public policy. 'To entertain such actions would aid the parties to enforce agreements which are repugnant to public policy. 1904As observed in the case of Cohn v. Heimbauch, 86 Wis. 176 , 56 N. W. 638 : “The courts will neither enforce nor set aside a contract which is illegal (and npt fraudulent) from being made on Sunday.” This is upon the principle that purity in the administration of the law forbids courts from entertaining a suit upon a cause of action arising out of a contract in violation of a statute, or which is void as against public policy. 'To entertain such actions would aid the parties to enforce agreements which are repugnant to public policy. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Brooks v. Martin
green
1 sentence1893These views are sustained and illustrated by the cases of Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70 , and Sharp v. Taylor, 2 Phil. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.