Legal Opinion

Colbert v. Colbert

California Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1946No. L. A. 19225PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

In an action for separate maintenance, Joseph W. Colbert was ordered to make certain payments pendente lite. Upon his appeal from that order, and also from a later one denying a motion to vacate it, the question for decision concerns the marital status of the parties.

The complaint of Ruth Colbert alleges that “she and defendant intermarried at Benton, Texas, May 3, 1940, and ever since have been and now are husband and wife.” Conduct characterized as extreme cruelty is pleaded as a cause of action. Upon the hearing of an order to show cause, Colbert was required to pay, pendente lite, stated…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Brinkley v. . BrinkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Litvinuk v. LitvinukCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Mather v. MatherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Carbone v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

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

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. Verone Marin Fehlhaber, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Robert F. Fehlhaber, Defendant-Appellant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
  2. Elden v. SheldonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Webber v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Hudson v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Rader v. ThrasherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962

56 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