Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2004AP3148 Dahm v. City of Milwaukee (63747)

By: dmc-admin//November 28, 2005//

2004AP3148 Dahm v. City of Milwaukee (63747)

By: dmc-admin//November 28, 2005//

Listen to this article

Accordingly, defendant, as the second wife, is entitled to the pension benefits.

Even though the husband’s cousin and a co-worker each opined that had the husband intended to change his beneficiary he would have done so, those opinions are not “specific facts” as required by Wis. Stat. Rule 802.08(3).

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Foley, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Ellen H. Tangen, Milwaukee

For Respondent: J. Timothy Lovett, New Berlin

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests