In Rollfink, the supreme court held that the test of liability of a corporate officer or majority shareholder is that of responsibility for the overall operation of the facility in question.
Summary of this case from State v. C. Spielvogel SonsArgued March 27, 1991.
Opinion republished as corrected at 475 N.W.2d 575.
In Rollfink, the supreme court held that the test of liability of a corporate officer or majority shareholder is that of responsibility for the overall operation of the facility in question.
Summary of this case from State v. C. Spielvogel SonsIn State v. Rollfink, 162 Wis.2d 121, 140a, 475 N.W.2d 575, 582-83, modifying 162 Wis.2d 121, 469 N.W.2d 398 (1991), the supreme court held that for purposes of § 144.44(4)(a), STATS., the definition of an operator of a hazardous waste facility contained in WIS. ADM. CODE § NR 600.03(152) (formerly § NR 181.04(70)) also applies to an operator of a solid waste facility.
Summary of this case from State v. C. Spielvogel SonsFull title:STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman ROLLFINK…
Court:Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Date published: May 23, 1991
Spielvogel asserts that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant, see State v.…
Capen Wholesale, Inc. v. ProbstSince Michelson, our courts rarely have revisited the question of whether "nonfeasance" can result in a…