Legal Opinion

Timm v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

There was no love between this man and woman; only lust. Their testimony makes it clear that they had no wish or intent to marry. Their fornication was casual, for their mutual gratification, without sentiment or pretense of fidelity to each other. Now the woman has an illegitimate child which she attributes to the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the “defendant.” The question before the trial court was whether the evidence established him to be the father beyond a reasonable doubt. The question before us, upon a review of the record, is whether reasonable doubt of such fatherhood…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Emery v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Roen v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Riley v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  4. State v. Van PattenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Schuh v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Brajdic v. SeberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Nehls v. NehlsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Pyeatte v. PyeatteCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1974
  4. Prochnow v. ProchnowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Prochnow v. ProchnowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API