Kronglaski v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Appellant, to- succeed here, must establish one of two propositions : Either that (1) the divorce was void in Washington under the law of that state, or that (2) granting its validity in Washington, the state of Wisconsin should not give effect to the judgment in Washington by recognizing the change it purported to have made in the status of Krong-laski for the reason that the status of appellant was never subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
The first question to be answered, logically, is whether this divorce was valid under the Washington law. If it was not, then the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Barber v. MorrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Atkins v. AtkinsNebraska Supreme Court · 1879
- Cummings v. TaborWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Correll v. GreiderIllinois Supreme Court · 1910
- Burns v. BurnsMississippi Supreme Court · 1923
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ford v. WhelanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939