Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Holtmann v. Knott

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1995No. 93-2911Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilcox, J.

I agree with the majority in this case that the *730circuit court properly concluded that Knott was entitled to summary judgment concerning the custody action commenced under sec. 767.24(3), Stats.

I disagree with the majority, however, as to its conclusion that the ch. 767 visitation statute — sec. 767.245, Stats — does not apply to Holtzman's petition for visitation rights to Knott's biological child. I believe that the legislature intended that circuit courts' powers regarding visitation were to be derived exclusively from sec. 767.245. Further, in reviewing and applying the cases construing…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Watts v. WattsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  2. In Interest of Angel Lace M.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Sporleder v. HermesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Laskaris v. City of Wisconsin Dells, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986
  5. Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Department of AgricultureWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975

1 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