Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 185.43 (2026)
Relief against breach or threatened breach
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
185.43(1)(1) In the event of a breach or threatened breach of a contract authorized by s. 185.41 by a member, the association shall be entitled to an injunction to prevent the breach or any further breach thereof, and to a decree of specific performance. Upon filing of a verified complaint showing such breach or threatened breach, and upon filing a sufficient bond, the association shall be entitled to a temporary restraining order against the member.
185.43(2)(2) Any person, with actual or constructive notice that a contract exists, who induces or attempts to induce any member to breach or repudiate the member’s contract with the association, or who in any manner aids a breach of such contract, is liable to the aggrieved party for damages caused by such interference. The association is also entitled to an injunction to prevent any interference or further interference with the contract.
185.43 AnnotationIt is not necessary to have demonstrated an intent to induce a cooperative member to breach or repudiate a contract with an association. Injury is presumed from a violation of the statute. Pure Milk Products Coop. v. NFO, 64 Wis. 2d 241, 219 N.W.2d 564 (1974).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1971–1998 · leading case: Pure Milk Prods. Coop. v. Nat'l Farmers Org., 280 N.W.2d 691 (Wis. 1979).
Pure Milk Prods. Coop. v. Nat'l Farmers Org., 280 N.W.2d 691 (Wis. 1979). “The circuit court concluded that NFO violated sec. 185.43(2), Stats., and issued an injunction pursuant to that statutory provision.”
Forest Cnty. v. Goode, 579 N.W.2d 715 (Wis. 1998). “The language of the 1975 statute in Pure Milk, Wis. Stat. § 185.43 (2), however, differs from the statutory language at issue here: [a]ny person, with actual or constructive notice that a contract [authorized by sec.”
Pure Milk Prods. Coop. v. Nat'l Farmers Org., 219 N.W.2d 564 (Wis. 1974). “The plaintiffs contend that all activities restrained by the order can be restrained by virtue of the provisions of sec. 185.43, Stats., and the principles of the common-law tort of contract interference.”
First Nat'l Bank of Wisconsin Rapids v. Dickinson, 308 N.W.2d 910 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981). “The federal court’s decision on the allegations of the Sherman antitrust violations and breach of the federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act do not reach the state claims involving: (1) breach of the indenture agreement; (2) tortious interference of contract; (3) violation of…”
In Re Herschell, 43 B.R. 680 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984). “It asserts that the state court action is brought under Section 185.43 of the Wisconsin Statutes which does not authorize a claim for damages against a farmer patron such as the debtors.”
North Cent. Dairymen's Coop. v. Temkin, 271 N.W.2d 890 (Wis. 1978). “The federal court’s decision on the allegations of the Sherman antitrust violations and breach of the federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act do not reach the state claims involving: (1) breach of the indenture agreement; (2) tortious interference of contract; (3) violation of…”
Pure Milk Prods. Co-Operative v. Nat'l Farmers Org., 332 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Wis. 1971). “1971); § 185.43(2), Wis.Stats. (1969). However, the defendants argue that “Congress has pre-empted the field of agricultural marketing” under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.”
— Wis. Stat. § 185.43(2) — 2 cases
Pure Milk Prods. Coop. v. Nat'l Farmers Org., 280 N.W.2d 691 (Wis. 1979). “The circuit court concluded that NFO violated sec. 185.43(2), Stats., and issued an injunction pursuant to that statutory provision.”
Pure Milk Prods. Co-Operative v. Nat'l Farmers Org., 332 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Wis. 1971). “1971); § 185.43(2), Wis.Stats. (1969). However, the defendants argue that “Congress has pre-empted the field of agricultural marketing” under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.