Lytwinick v. Lytwinick
Connecticut Superior Court
1Opinion of the CourtMacDonald, J.
This action for annulment or divorce and custody of a minor child was brought by the plaintiff-husband by writ returnable the first Tuesday of March, 1959. Defendant-wife, by motion dated March 31, 1959, requested an allowance to defend, but this motion was not heard in open court, being, instead, discussed informally in chambers with the result that it was decided by counsel to allow the motion to go off and renew it at time of trial. It is undoubtedly true that defendant’s counsel performed valuable services for defendant both before and after this discussion for which he expected…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Beadleston v. . BeadlestonNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Weisguth v. Supreme Tribe of Ben HurIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
- Lusas v. St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Steinmann v. SteinmannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- McBride v. . McBrideNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Matey v. City of WaterburyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Palumbo v. BarbadimosConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016