Legal Opinion
Keck v. Keck
California Supreme Court
Decided October 31, 1933No. Docket No. S.F. 14747PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
On September 3, 1930, Arthur W. Keck was cited by the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in failing to make monthly payments due Lizzie B. Keck under an order for alimony pendente lite. The hearing on this order to show cause was not held until May 11, 1932. In the meantime an interlocutory decree of divorce had been entered on March 16, 1931, in favor of Lizzie B. Keck, on her cross-complaint for extreme cruelty and wilful desertion, by which she was allowed $100 a month for her support, with the provision that…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Sistare v. SistareSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Lynde v. LyndeSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Lynde v. Lynde; Lynde v. LyndeSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Parker v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Cummings v. CummingsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Bowman v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Kruger v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Falcone v. FykeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Cousineau v. CousineauOregon Supreme Court · 1936
- Vella v. HudginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.