Legal Opinion

Bourestom v. Bourestom

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1939PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed April 11, 1939:

Fairchild, J.

Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is domiciled in Wisconsin. It appears that the parties were and are living together as husband and wife in Duluth, Minnesota. The accident occurred in Oklahoma, while the parties with some friends were on an automobile trip. In Minnesota a wife cannot maintain an action in tort against her husband. Woltman v. Woltman (1922), 153 Minn. 217, 189 N. W. 1022. The rule is otherwise in Wisconsin. Wait v. Pierce (1926), 191 Wis. 202, 209 N. W. 475, 210 N. W. 822; Fontaine v. Fontaine (1931), 205 Wis.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wait v. PierceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Woltman v. WoltmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  4. Fontaine v. FontaineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Byerly v. ThorpeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Pierce v. ClemensIndiana Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Zurick v. InmanTennessee Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Bogen v. . BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Bogen v. BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API