Legal Opinion

Gleixner v. Schulkewitz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1943PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

Defendants’ first ground for demurrer is that it appears from the allegations in the complaint that the guardian, Dorothy Gleixner, does not possess capacity or authority as guardian of Mary Schulkewitz, an incompetent, to bring the action. To1 sustain that ground defendants contend that it does not appear that Dorothy Gleixner has been appointed guardian of the estate or property of Mary Schulke-witz. The pertinent allegations involved are “That the plaintiff ... is the duly appointed and qualified guardian of Mary Schulkewitz, incompetent, and as such is plaintiff in this action"That your…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Supervisors of Kewaunee County v. DeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Wachowski v. LutzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  3. New Bank of Eau Claire v. KleinerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Risch v. Von LillienthalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Kuelkamp v. HiddingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Klitzke v. EbertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Cannon v. BerensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API