Legal Opinion

Ross v. Ross

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 27, 1941No. Civ. 12653PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHAW, J. pro tem.

This is an action for divorce, and at the time plaintiff filed her complaint she also filed an affidavit setting forth her claim of necessity for temporary alimony and for an allowance of counsel fees and costs to enable her to prosecute the action. On this affidavit she obtained an order directing defendant to show cause on August 8, 1939, why such alimony, counsel fees and costs should not be allowed to her. At the time so fixed, defendant did not appear, and an order was made directing him to pay certain sums for plaintiff’s counsel fees and costs in the action, but no…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. MacPhersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Farrar v. SteenberghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Weeks v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Ingrim v. EppersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Alferitz v. CahenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Benjamin v. Dalmo Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Jackson v. LajaunieSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1972
  3. Martin v. CookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  4. In Re LargeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Smith v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

10 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