MARRIAGE OF STEINKE v. Steinke
In RE the MARRIAGE OF: Judith M. STEINKE, Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Robert Allen STEINKE, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
(On motion for reconsideration).
The motion for reconsideration is denied without costs.
In In re Marriage of Steinke v. Steinke, 126 Wis. 2d 372, 389 , 376 N.W.2d 839 (1985), immediately above the mandate, we delete the phrase "the actuarial present value of the entire interest at the time of trial was approximately $15,900."
We add the following sentence immediately above the mandate: An opinion as to actuarial present value was included in the record as an answer to an interrogatory, i.e., $15,900, but was not received in evidence. The amount is not conclusive on remand. The trial court must evaluate and include the interest in the pension in the property division; the parties may introduce evidence of the value of the pension interest.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(published opinion holding attorney in contempt and imposing $300 fine for practicing law after revocation of his license)
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.