Legal Opinion · Dissent

Foley v. Foley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 26, 1990No. 381Published

1DissentPopovich, Judge

While I agree with the implicit holding of the majority that duress may be extrinsic fraud, I reject the majority’s determination that appellant’s actions amounted to extrinsic fraud which precluded a fair hearing or presentation of appellee’s case. Rather, I would find that under the facts before us, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, the trial judge abused his discretion in vacating the divorce decree. Masciulli v. Masciulli, 194 Pa.Super. 646, 169 A.2d 562 (1961) (standard of review). This is not to say that appellee is without an avenue of redress since an action in…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Sonder v. SonderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Carrier v. William Penn Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Bleakley v. BarclaySupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
  5. McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920

12 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