1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 157 Wis.2d
  5. 157 Wis.2d 362 (1990)
 

HOGAN v. MUSOLF

No. 89-1175.

157 Wis.2d 362 (1990)

459 N.W.2d 865

J. Gerard HOGAN, Delores M. Hogan, Jerome S. Poker, Margaret H. Poker, on behalf of themselves and all residents of the State of Wisconsin who were paid retirement benefits by the United States Government in any one or all of the years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Mark E. MUSOLF, individually and as former secretary of the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Michael Ley, individually and as former secretary of the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Karen A. Case, individually and as secretary of the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Mark D. Bugher, individually and as secretary of the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, and all their unknown agents, employees, successors in office, assistants and all others acting in concert or cooperation with the current and former secretaries of the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue or at the direction of the current and former secretaries of the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Defendants-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Decided July 5, 1990.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the defendants-appellants the cause was submitted on the briefs of Donald J. Hanaway, attorney general, with F. Thomas Creeron III, assistant attorney general.

For the plaintiffs-respondents the cause was submitted on the briefs of O'Neil, Cannon & Hollman, S.C., by Eugene O. Duffy, Gregory W. Lyons, and Mark S. Poker, of Milwaukee.

Before Eich, C.J., Gartzke, P.J., Dykman, J.

GARTZKE, P.J.

The present and three former secretaries of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) appeal from an order certifying the plaintiff class of federal retirees, preliminarily enjoining DOR from taxing retirement benefits received by the class, and denying defendants' motion to dismiss in part. We granted defendants leave to appeal pursuant to sec. 808.03(2), Stats. The issues are whether: (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases