Legal Opinion

Hopkins v. Hopkins

California Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1956No. L. A. 23791PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, J.

Plaintiff brought this action in September 1950 to collect the accrued arrearages not barred by the statute of limitations (see Hopkins v. Hopkins, 116 Cal.App.2d 174 [253 P.2d 723]) under a 1927 Colorado decree of divorce, which incorporated a property settlement agreement providing that defendant should pay to plaintiff “in lieu of all payments of alimony and support money, and by way of support and maintenance for the first party [plaintiff] and their said minor children, the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) per month . . .” in addition to certain lump-sum payments that were to be…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Barham v. BarhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Dexter v. DexterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Worthley v. WorthleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Putnam v. PutnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Wilkins v. WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. United States v. One Assortment of 89 FirearmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Anderson v. MartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Zalka v. ZalkaSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
  4. Grossman v. GrossmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1963
  5. Creed v. SchultzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API