Legal Opinion

Mumma v. Mumma

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 10, 1948No. Civ. 16214PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, J.

This is an action to recover damages for fraud and to set aside the interlocutory decree of divorce obtained by plaintiff against defendant. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Judgment for defendant was entered from which plaintiff appeals.

The pleaded facts in plaintiff’s first cause of action are: That in reliance on the fraudulent representations of defendant to plaintiff that there was no existing legal impediment to his entering into a valid marriage with her, plaintiff, on August 22, 1934, in the city of Los Angeles, entered into a ceremonial form of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Kinnier v. . KinnierNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  4. Estate of DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Cardinale v. CardinaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. People v. SilvaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  2. Strauss v. StraussCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Treece v. TreeceIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Brown v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
  5. Rudnick v. RudnickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

3 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