Smazal v. Estate of Dassow
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.
In sustaining the demurrer to the complaint of Clara Smazal, the trial court determined that the alleged contract between Clara Smazal and the putative father did not conform to the provisions of sec. 52.28, Stats. We agree with that conclusion.
In the instant case, the alleged agreement was oral, and the putative father had died before Clara Smazal attempted to obtain legal enforcement of the alleged agreement. Never» theless, we consider that the impact of sec. 52.28, Stats., would be applicable even if the agreement were in writing and even if the claimed father were alive. This is because…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Conley v. BartonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Francken v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- Chippewa Valley Securities Co. v. HerbstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Onsrud v. KenyonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gerhardt v. Estate of MooreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Lennon ex rel. Lennon v. WalrodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
- P.J.W. v. D.A.H.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
- Smazal v. Estate of DassowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964