Legal Opinion

Ritter v. Ritter

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 30, 1930No. Docket No. 7105PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNELL, J., pro tem.

This appeal is from an interlocutory judgment of divorce, from certain orders there after made and from the final judgment. As to the last mentioned, it is evident that the same must be reversed, for the reason that it was made and entered prior to the disposition of the appeal from the interlocutory judgment contrary to the provision of section 132 of the Civil Code that “if any appeal is taken from the interlocutory judgment or motion for a new trial made, final judgment shall not be entered until such motion or appeal has been finally disposed of. . . . ” (Carp v.…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Stewart v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Newell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  3. Whiting v. WhitingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. Flynn v. FinkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Peachy v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Ruff v. RuffNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Harrold v. HarroldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Falk v. FalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Hiltbrand v. HiltbrandIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Negley v. NegleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

15 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