Legal Opinion

Mollencamp v. Mollencamp

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 16, 1934No. 2372PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*91OPINION

By HORNBECK, PJ.

We have read the record with care. The testimony supporting the decree of the trial court, if true, is not as convincing and satisfactory as is ordinarily found in support of such decrees. There is much evidence of the plaintiff respecting misconduct of the defendant which is not corroborated. Much of the testimony is indefinite in its terms. The defendant is charged with improprieties with men, but in no instance is there any identification, and the improprieties are only defined in most general terms. There are some suspicious circumstances but they are not supported…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Slater v. SlaterOhio Court of Appeals · 1933

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dursa v. DursaOhio Court of Appeals · 1958
  2. Holderle v. HolderleOhio Court of Appeals · 1967
  3. Holland v. HollandOhio Court of Appeals · 1947
  4. Watson v. WatsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1956
  5. Tompkins v. TompkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API