Lombard v. Lombard
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Ervin, J.,
The judge of the court below, who heard the testimony without a jury, granted the husband a divorce on the ground of indignities. The wife appealed.
The trier of facts, who sees the parties and their witnesses and hears them testify, has a distinct advantage in determining which of divergent or contradictory statements should be accepted as true. In divorce cases, however, where there has been no jury trial, the appellate courts may not escape their duty of examining the evidence de novo for the purpose of determining whether the charges alleged in the complaint have been…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Matovcik v. MatovcikSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Bobst v. BobstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Hepworth v. HepworthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Hurley v. HurleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Blose v. BloseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Zirot v. ZirotSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Hughes v. HughesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Boniewicz v. BoniewiczSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Worobey v. WorobeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Jonash v. JonashSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.