Ball v. District No. 4, Area Board

Decided 1984-03-27

Cited by 363 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J. (dissenting). A unanimous court of appeals concluded that the referendum requirements of sec. 38.15, Stats., apply to District No. 4’s current plan for a split campus for the new MATC facilities, and that the requirements of that statute have not been met. I agree with that conclusion. The court of appeals’ decision very importantly serves to carry out the legislature’s intention in pas…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.