Legal Opinion

Glojek v. Glojek

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1948PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

The argument of defendants can be very simply put: This court in a number of cases has held, (1) that undue influence is a species of fraud; Will of Grosse, 208 Wis. 473, 243 N. W. 465; Boardman v. Lorentzen, 155 Wis. 566, 145 N. W. 750; Will of Slinger, 72 Wis. 22, 37 N. W. 236; Will of Schaefer, 207 Wis. 404, 241 N. W. 382; Will of Ball, 153 Wis. 27, 141 N. W. 8; and (2) that an action to set aside a deed upon the ground of fraud does not survive to heirs of the decedent. Zartner v. Holzhauer, 204 Wis. 18, 24, 234 N. W. 508; Krueger v. Hansen, 238 Wis. 638; 300 N. W. 474; Riedi v. Heinzl,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Will of Ball v. BostonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Schaefer v. ZiebellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Cole v. GetzingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Davis v. DeanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Will of SlingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Groshek v. TREWINWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  2. J. Steven Tikalsky v. Susan FriedmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 2019
  3. Borsgard v. ElverumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  4. Keske v. Marshall & Ilsley BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. State Deptartment of Public Welfare v. LeMereWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

2 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