Zapuchlak v. Hucal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ‘When a statute of frauds question arises, as here, several years after the agreement in question was made, the statute in effect at the time of the agreement controls.”
• “property referred to in memorandum must be described to a reasonable certainty”
• in the context of an insufficient land description under the statute of frauds, the “[f]ailure to comply with the statute renders the contract void. The question in such a case is not what reasonable [persons] intended to convey, or what the parties know ….” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Beverly Maeker v. William Ross (072185)
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2014-09-25· cited 52×
• D.S.A. v. Circuit Court Branch 1, Rock County Juvenile Probation Department, John Whitcomb and Donald Hanaway
  Seventh Circuit· 1991-09-05· cited 40×
• In Matter of Adoption of RPR
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1980-10-28· cited 35×
• Rameker v. Peterson (In Re Associated Enterprises, Inc.)
  W.D. Wisconsin· 1999-05-21· cited 2×
• Neimark v. Mel Kramer Sales, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1981-04-27· cited 2×
• Charles Bich v. WW3 LLC
  Seventh Circuit· 2025-03-10· cited 2×
• MPI Wright LLC v. Goodin Company
  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin· 2025-02-06
• Charles Bich v. WW3 LLC
  Seventh Circuit· 2025-03-12

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Amidzich v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1969-09-30· cited 79×
• Paterson v. Paterson
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1976-06-14· cited 32×
• Wadsworth v. Moe
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1972-02-01· cited 11×
• Rollie Winter Agency, Inc. v. First Central Mortgage, Inc.
  Wisconsin Supreme Court· 1977-01-06· cited 5×