Legal Opinion

Gold v. Gold

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchenck, J.

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the amended complaint, or in the alternative for judgment on the pleadings dismissing that part of the first cause of action set forth in the amended complaint which asks for injunctive relief. The complaint asks that a declaratory judgment be made and entered that plaintiff is the lawful wife of the defendant Louis J. Gold, that the defendant Louis J. Gold and the defendant Augusta Spiselman, also known as Augusta Spiselman Gold, are not husband and wife and that a colorable New Jersey decree of divorce is of no value, force and effect.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Baumann v. BaumannNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Richman v. RichmanNew York Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dandini v. DandiniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  2. Marquis v. MarquisNew York Supreme Court · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API