Legal Opinion

Russell v. Russell

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 17, 1961No. [No. 144, September Term, 1960.]PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The only question presented here is whether the evidence produced by appellee is sufficient to support the decree for permanent alimony passed by the chancellor.

The parties were married in 1936 and are childless. For many years, and during these proceedings, they have lived in a home owned by them in Baltimore City. Until recent years their marital career was uneventful. However, in 1957 the wife filed suit for divorce a mensa et thoro for reasons not made clear in the record. Later in the same year the parties became reconciled and that suit was abandoned. In July, 1959, the wife filed the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Moran v. MoranCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  2. Oertel v. OertelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
  3. Zukerberg v. ZukerbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
  4. Crumlick v. CrumlickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
  5. Brault v. BraultCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wallace v. WallaceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  2. Stein v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. Flanagan v. FlanaganCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972
  4. Levy v. LevyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  5. Binder v. BinderCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972

1 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