Legal Opinion

Windahl v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1926PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

As there must be a new trial we deem it unnecessary to comment on the evidence.

During the trial the plaintiff in error, hereinafter designated as defendant, offered to prove by a number of witnesses, all residents of Hudson, where he had lived for some thirteen years, that his reputation for chastity and morality was good in that community. This was objected to and the objection sustained. Defendant assigns this ruling as error.

The general rule in other jurisdictions, as stated in 7 Corp. Jur. 992, is to the effect that in bastardy proceedings the defendant may not, as he may in ordinary…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Roen v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  2. State v. JagerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
  3. State v. MushiedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Overseer of the Poor of Montclair v. EasonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1918
  5. Goyke v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. PavelichWashington Supreme Court · 1929
  2. State Ex Rel. Sowle v. BrittichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  3. State ex rel. Mahnke v. KablitzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Cobb v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Wille v. State ex rel. KesslerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

4 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