State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtCURRIE
Citation139 N.W.2d 94,29 Wis.2d 413
PartiesSTATE ex rel. Judith STOLLBERG, Appellant, v. Jack CRITTENDEN, Respondent.
Decision Date04 January 1966

Page 94

139 N.W.2d 94
29 Wis.2d 413
STATE ex rel. Judith STOLLBERG, Appellant,
v.
Jack CRITTENDEN, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Jan. 4, 1966.

[29 Wis.2d 414] Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., Madison, Robert P. Russell, Corp. Counsel, Patrick J. Foster, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Milwaukee, for appellant.

Edward R. Cameron and Alvin L. Zelonky, Milwaukee, for respondents.

CURRIE, Chief Justice.

Counsel for relator raise the following contentions on this appeal:

(1) There is no credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports the jury verdict.

(2) Defendant's counsel engaged in improper cross-examination and made improper remarks in the presence of the jury which were prejudicial and require a new trial if this court does not determine that the evidence requires a judgment that defendant is the father of the child.

(3) A new trial should be granted in the interest of justice if relator does not prevail with respect to either of the foregoing two contentions.

Credible Evidence to Sustain Verdict.

The child, a boy, was born September 16, 1964, and weighed 7 pounds 7 ounces. Relator's last menstrual period before the child's birth commenced December 14, 1963, and lasted approximately five days.

[29 Wis.2d 415] Relator and defendant became acquainted at 'Bennie's' tavern in Milwaukee where

Page 95

defendant was working as a bartender. Defendant had commenced work as a bartender in the month of November, 1963, and testified he noticed that relator frequented the bar three or four times a week. He testified relator always remained until closing time and then left with other men.

On the night of December 22d, after the bar closed, defendant took relator home for the first time. Both parties testified they engaged in intercourse that first night they were together. Their relationship continued through the remainder of December and the month of January and involved further engagements in intercourse.

There was no testimony that relator had intercourse with other men during the period of probable conception, but defendant testified that relator often left the bar with other men after closing time, and named three and a possible fourth. Relator admitted that during this period she had been 'taken home' by two of the men named by defendant on different occasions after the bar had closed.

Relator contends that these instances when she was taken home after the bar closed were not 'dates' with the men involved, and she did not in fact 'go out' with them. However, relator also did not consider that her first night out with defendant was a 'date,' yet they engaged in sexual intercourse on that first night.

Counsel for relator contend that there was not credible evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant was not the father of the child. This contention is based on defendant's admission that he had intercourse with relator during the conception period and the fact that there was no direct contradiction of relator's testimony that she did not have intercourse with any other men during this period. Defendant, on the other hand, maintains that there was evidence from which the jury would draw a reasonable inference that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Delaney v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1966
    ...nondisclosures increased the risk as a matter of law. In a case decided at this assignment, State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden, Wis., 139 N.W.2d 94 (decided January 4, 1966), the court made the following observation about uncontradicted evidence in a paternity 'Counsel for relator stress......
  • Entzminger v. Ford Motor Co., No. 308
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 1, 1970
    ...the jury was not required to accept the uncontested testimony of the witness for Ford. State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden (1966), 29 Wis.2d 413, 416, 139 N.W.2d 94; Lazarus v. American Motors Corp. (1963), 21 Wis.2d 76, 84, 123 N.W.2d 548; Thiel v. Damrau (1954), 268 Wis. 76, 66 N.W.2d 7......
  • People ex rel. Brown v. Baker, No. 54430
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 18, 1981
    ...820, 823, 306 N.E.2d 879 ("keeping company" somewhat short of intimate relations); cf. State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden (1966), 29 Wis.2d 413, 139 N.W.2d In view of the admittedly existing intimate relationship between plaintiff and defendant during the period of conception, the absenc......
  • Village of Elmwood Park v. City of Racine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1966
    ...appellants do not dispute, that Elmwood Park had no reasonable basis to annex Mt. Pleasant, there being no present need or demonstrable [29 Wis.2d 413] future need for that territory. Without a showing of some reasonable need, the proceeding, in legal parlance, is arbitrary and capricious, ......
4 cases
  • Delaney v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1966
    ...nondisclosures increased the risk as a matter of law. In a case decided at this assignment, State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden, Wis., 139 N.W.2d 94 (decided January 4, 1966), the court made the following observation about uncontradicted evidence in a paternity 'Counsel for relator stress......
  • Entzminger v. Ford Motor Co., No. 308
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 1, 1970
    ...the jury was not required to accept the uncontested testimony of the witness for Ford. State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden (1966), 29 Wis.2d 413, 416, 139 N.W.2d 94; Lazarus v. American Motors Corp. (1963), 21 Wis.2d 76, 84, 123 N.W.2d 548; Thiel v. Damrau (1954), 268 Wis. 76, 66 N.W.2d 7......
  • People ex rel. Brown v. Baker, No. 54430
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 18, 1981
    ...820, 823, 306 N.E.2d 879 ("keeping company" somewhat short of intimate relations); cf. State ex rel. Stollberg v. Crittenden (1966), 29 Wis.2d 413, 139 N.W.2d In view of the admittedly existing intimate relationship between plaintiff and defendant during the period of conception, the absenc......
  • Village of Elmwood Park v. City of Racine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 4, 1966
    ...appellants do not dispute, that Elmwood Park had no reasonable basis to annex Mt. Pleasant, there being no present need or demonstrable [29 Wis.2d 413] future need for that territory. Without a showing of some reasonable need, the proceeding, in legal parlance, is arbitrary and capricious, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT