Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ponath v. Hedrick

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1964Published

1DissentHallows, J.

I cannot agree that “due regard” for “future maintenance” requires this court as a matter of law to create an exemption of social-security benefits and state employees’ retirement funds for the purpose of determining under sec. 52.01, Stats., the ability of a parent, spouse, or child, of a dependent person to maintain such person. Neither does the laudable purpose of the social legislation, the Social Security Act, or the Wisconsin retirement fund require such a construction. It was customary before we had governmental assistance, prenatal to postmortem, for families to take care of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hansis v. BroughamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API