Busch v. Busch
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLING, J., pro tem.
In an action for divorce, plaintiff and respondent procured an order on March 11, 1927, that defendant and appellant pay her $1,000 per month temporary alimony, $1,000 suit money, $7,500 attorneys’ fees and $3,600, the purpose of this $3,600 payment not being stated in the order. Notice of appeal from this order was filed March 17, 1927. Thereafter on April 21, 1927, respondent secured a further order that appellant pay her $1500 counsel fees and $200 suit money to ’ enable her to resist the appeal from the prior order. From this second order appellant also appeals. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tremper v. TremperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Loveren v. LoverenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Peyre v. PeyreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Farrar v. FarrarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Reed v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Heck v. HeckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Loeb v. LoebCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Westphal v. WestphalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Warner v. WarnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Pope v. PopeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.