Fricke v. Fricke
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.
Because of the basis of our conclusion we do not recite all of the facts to which our attention has been called. Counsel have referred to testimony bearing upon the contention that the plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter into the antenuptial agreement and to that which bears upon defendant’s contention that the circumstances proved are such as to call for a determination applicable only to the facts of this case. We are of the opinion that any antenuptial agreement which attempts to limit the husband’s liability in the event of separation or divorce is void as against public policy.
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Moorehead's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Stratton v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Bibelhausen v. BibelhausenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
- Ryan v. DockeryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Coy v. HumphreysMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
3Cited by22 opinions
- Brooks v. BrooksAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
- Scherer v. SchererSupreme Court of Georgia · 1982
- Caldwell v. CaldwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Osborne v. OsborneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- Gross v. GrossOhio Supreme Court · 1984
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.