Legal Opinion

Finnegan v. Finnegan

California Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1954No. L. A. 22394PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*763TRAYNOR, J.

In 1943 plaintiff secured a decree of separate maintenance awarding her all 'of the community property and $100 per month for the support of the minor son of the parties. On defendant’s appeal the decree was affirmed as to these provisions but reversed insofar as it ordered a sale of certain property by a receiver. (Finnegan v. Finnegan, 64 Cal.App.2d 109 [148 P.2d 37].) Thereafter the parties entered into a property settlement agreement, which by stipulation was adopted as the basis for a final judgment of separate maintenance. The stipulation provided that “the provisions of the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Barham v. BarhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Dexter v. DexterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Fox v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Cardinale v. CardinaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Messenger v. MessengerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Hull v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Taliaferro v. TaliaferroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Bowers v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1955
  5. Helvern v. HelvernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

6 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