Legal Opinion

Buckeye v. Buckeye

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1931PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

It is contended by the appellant that since the tort on which this action is based was committed in Illinois, and that since, by the law of Illinois, the marriage *250of the parties would have the effect of extinguishing the cause of action, the Illinois law must be held to govern and the cause of action to have been extinguished at the time of the trial. It does not appear in this case where the parties were married, but it is clear that they are domiciled in Wisconsin. It is presumed that the law of the place where the marriage was performed is the same as the law of this state, and the sole…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Slater v. Mexican National RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Bain v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Dorr Cattle Co. v. Des Moines National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
  5. Newton v. WeberNew York Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. McSwain v. McSwainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Brown v. GosserCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1953
  4. Coster v. CosterNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
  5. Shaw v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

30 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