Legal Opinion

Heymann v. Luchsinger

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1926PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.

The contest in this proceeding involves the domicile of the deceased at the time of his death.

The law of domicile is well settled. Generally speaking, it may be said that the domicile of a person is his legal home, and that every person has a domicile which may be his then residence or otherwise, depending upon all the facts and circumstances. A domicile, once established, is presumed to continue until a new domicile has been effectuated. Every person has a domicile, and the “man without a country” exists only in fiction, not in law. One may change his domicile for any reason or for no…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re Revocation of Ancillary Letters Testamentary of the Estate of NewcombNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Truelsch v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Frame v. ThormannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Will of EatonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Kellogg v. Supervisors of Winnebago CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1877

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Josam Manufacturing Co. v. State Board of HealthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  2. In re Incorporation of the Village of ChenequaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Cliffs Chemical Co. v. Wisconsin Tax CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. WestMissouri Court of Appeals · 1953
  5. Strandberg v. StrandbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

8 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