Legal Opinion

Nordmann v. Nordmann

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 16, 1964No. Appeals, 211 and 212PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

The primary question in this appeal is whether the evidence given at the ex parte hearing on the complaint in divorce a mensa et thoro is sufficient to support the decree. The appeal taken from the decree was in time since the proceedings were stayed by order of the lower court following the entry of the decree. Commonwealth v. Samolsky, 202 Pa. Superior Ct. 406, 195 A. 2d 818 (1963).

The proof required in an action for divorce a mensa et thoro must be as clear as in an action for an absolute divorce. Commonwealth ex rel. Reddick v. Reddick, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 111,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hepworth v. HepworthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Commonwealth ex rel. Reddick v. ReddickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Miln v. MilnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  4. Com. Ex Rel. Reddick v. ReddickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  5. Robinson v. RobinsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Nichols v. NicholsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Sokol v. SokolSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API