Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Progress v. First Judicial District Court

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1931No. 2948Published

1Dissent

With all due respect for the judgment of my associates, I think that their conclusion that the statute enacted by the last legislature creating an additional cause for divorce was intended to be retroactive in its operation is not warranted by the language of the statute. The statute in part (Stats. 1931, c. 111) reads:

"SECTION 1. Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained * * * When the husband and wife have lived apart for five consecutive years without cohabitation the court may at its discretion grant an absolute decree of divorce at the suit of either party."

It may be conceded…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. HethSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
  2. Barrington v. BarringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  3. Cole v. ColeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Hurry v. HurrySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1917
  5. Virden v. SmithNevada Supreme Court · 1922

10 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