Legal Opinion

Heckathorn v. Heckathorn

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1938No. Docket No. 58, Calendar No. 39,801PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPotter, J.

Plaintiff filed a bill for separate maintenance against defendant. Prom decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Plaintiff (now 58 years of age) was married to defendant (now 71 years old) at Hillsdale in 1914. Plaintiff alleges she left defendant March 6, 1936. It is unnecessary to detail the testimony supporting plaintiff’s claim. It is conceded by defendant the evidence of extreme cruelty is sufficient to support a finding of grounds for divorce. There were allegations of failure of defendant to support plaintiff but sufficiently explained. They are unimportant.

We start then with the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. HarrisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  2. South East Public Service Corp. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1935
  3. People Ex Rel. Municipal Gas Co. v. RiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. Carlsen v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1934
  5. State ex rel. Wisconsin Dry Milk Co. v. Circuit CourtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Aikens v. Department of ConservationMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
  2. State Treasurer v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  3. People v. LynchMichigan Supreme Court · 1981
  4. L. A. Darling Co. v. Water Resources CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Rose v. RoseMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968

29 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