Legal Opinion

Heinemann v. Heinemann

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

Plaintiff appeals upon two grounds: (1) That the statutory requirements with reference to service of the counterclaim upon the district attorney, and with reference to his appearance in open court, were not satisfied, *641and that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction; and (2) that the period of desertion, as shown by the evidence, was for less than the period required by statute.

Sec. 247.14, Stats., provides:

“In any action to affirm or annul a marriage, or for a divorce, the plaintiff and defendant shall, within ten days after making service on the opposite party of his complaint,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
  2. Hiecke v. HieckeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Martin v. MartinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Hurning v. HurningSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  5. White v. WhiteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cameron v. CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Beyer v. SeymerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Limberg v. LimbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Brevak v. BrevakCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
  5. Liber v. LiberConnecticut Superior Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API