Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Marachowsky v. Kerl

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1951PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehu, J.

It is the contention of the defendant that no verified income-tax return was filed. The facts are stated in State ex rel. Arthur v. Proctor (1949), 255 Wis. 355, 356, 38 N. W. (2d) 505:

“As the evidence was taken at the hearing, it appeared that the return was signed at the home of the accused in Portage, Columbia county, Wisconsin, and was not sworn to before any notary at that time. The return was then mailed to a certified public accountant retained by the Portage Store Company in Madison. Counsel for the accused then stipulated that the return was ‘duly filed’ in the state income-tax…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. WhatleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. O'Neil v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Mandella v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  4. State Ex Rel. Arthur v. ProctorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Chambers v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. DrogsvoldCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
  2. Court v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  3. State Ex Rel. Gaynon v. KruegerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. State Ex Rel. Hussong v. FroelichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. State Ex Rel. McMillian v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986

9 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