HOME Popular Books Popular Audioooks Popular Textbooks Popular Freebooks More Genres

Book

Audiobook

Genres

Janet Limberg v. Harold Limberg Et Al.

By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Release : 1960-04-05

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
Proceeding for blood tests of plaintiff, defendant, and child following a divorce action. The plaintiff wife was granted a
divorce from the defendant husband on April 1, 1957. The action was contested by the husband, hereinafter referred to as the
defendant. At the beginning of the trial the plaintiff testified that she was pregnant and that she expected her child to
be born in April, 1957. He was born on April 20, of that year. Prior thereto the parties had but one child, born on January
4, 1953. When plaintiff's pregnancy was testified to the defendant's attorney stated that they were going to contest the paternity
of the child. On July 17, 1957, based upon an affidavit by the defendant, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause on
July 19, 1957, why a blood test should not be ordered for the plaintiff, the defendant, and the child, under the provisions
of sec. 325.23, Stats. 1957. Thereafter the child was made a party to the action and a reputable attorney was appointed as
his guardian ad litem. Before the application for the blood test was determined by the trial court, the defendant appealed to this court from the
judgment of divorce. Upon the appeal the defendant alleged errors upon the trial and that there was insufficient evidence
to warrant a judgment of divorce. Our decision upon the appeal was handed down on November 5, 1958, and appears in 5 Wis.
2d 327, 92 N.W.2d 767. The judgment was affirmed. Among the findings of fact by the trial court was the following:

Janet Limberg v. Harold Limberg Et Al.

By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Release : 1960-04-05

Genre : Law, Books, Professional & Technical

Kind : ebook

(0 ratings)
Proceeding for blood tests of plaintiff, defendant, and child following a divorce action. The plaintiff wife was granted a
divorce from the defendant husband on April 1, 1957. The action was contested by the husband, hereinafter referred to as the
defendant. At the beginning of the trial the plaintiff testified that she was pregnant and that she expected her child to
be born in April, 1957. He was born on April 20, of that year. Prior thereto the parties had but one child, born on January
4, 1953. When plaintiff's pregnancy was testified to the defendant's attorney stated that they were going to contest the paternity
of the child. On July 17, 1957, based upon an affidavit by the defendant, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause on
July 19, 1957, why a blood test should not be ordered for the plaintiff, the defendant, and the child, under the provisions
of sec. 325.23, Stats. 1957. Thereafter the child was made a party to the action and a reputable attorney was appointed as
his guardian ad litem. Before the application for the blood test was determined by the trial court, the defendant appealed to this court from the
judgment of divorce. Upon the appeal the defendant alleged errors upon the trial and that there was insufficient evidence
to warrant a judgment of divorce. Our decision upon the appeal was handed down on November 5, 1958, and appears in 5 Wis.
2d 327, 92 N.W.2d 767. The judgment was affirmed. Among the findings of fact by the trial court was the following:

advertisement

Access e-books

More By Supreme Court of Wisconsin

City Madison v. Frank Lloyd Wright

Whirlpool Corporation v. Sharon Ziebert

Wisconsin Employment Relations Board V.

Marshfield Clinic v. Paul F. Doege

Jones v. Citibank

Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Weeks Pickle Co.

Greggory R. Devore v. Ihc Hospitals

Dail Ray Stewart v. State Utah

Knutson And Wife v. Mueller

Beecher v. Labor & Industry Review Commission

Crest Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Cadillac V.

William Harmann v. Cherie Hadley

Promulgation a Code Judicial Ethics

Janet Limberg v. Harold Limberg Et Al.

State Wisconsin v. George E. Johnson

Margaret Gotz v. Eugene Gotz

Hoepner v. City Eau Claire

Cogger and Another v. Trudell and Others

Joseph Nechodomu v. Wilbert Lindstrom

S. S. Kresge Co. Michigan v. Winkelman

State v. Michels Pipeline Construction

State v. Retail Gasoline Dealers Assn

State v. Turpin

Pat Christine Savage v. Educators

Margaret Holm v. Michael Smilowitz

Panorama Residential Protective Association v. Panorama Corp.

Prince v. Savage

State Vermont v. Jacob Levine

Old National Bank of Washington v. Arneson

Makah Indian Tribe v. The

Couie v. Local Union No. 1849 United Brotherhood of Carpenters

Fish v. Halferty

Mandella v. State (Two Cases). Fazio V.

Salt Lake Knee & Sports Rehabilitation V.

Alicia Larson v. Marc Larson

Lisa Hooley Olsen v. Harold K. Hooley

Doyce Allen v. Utah Department Health

Erin Jo Chambers v. Thomas D. Chambers

Robyn Lynn Sneddon v. Robert Graham and

Poundstone v. Whitney

Charles Belock Et Al. v. State Mutual Fire

Mae E. Murray v. John M. Allen

02/18/93 Michelle T. V. Cecil Crozier

Barbara H. Crossman v. Lyle P. Crossman

Dewitt Ross & Stevens

Day v. Frazer

Gte North Incorporated v. Public Service

Engel v. Van Den Boogart

State Utah v. Francis Preston Mitchell

Washington v. Dickerson