Legal Opinion

Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided March 29, 1956No. 12965_1PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

The question is whether the District Court may in its discretion reduce or cancel, at a later date, periodic installments of payments for maintenance as of the date when application for such relief is made. We re-affirm our decision in Dausuel v. Dausuel, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 276, 195 F.2d 774, 775, that the court may do so. Cf. Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 380, 193 F.2d 677, 684, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 557, 96 L.Ed. 702; 6 A.L.R.2d 1277, 1328.

Affirmed.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kephart v. KephartCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952
  2. Dausuel v. DausuelCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1952

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Steadman v. SteadmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Trezevant v. TrezevantDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Movius v. MoviusMontana Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Rhodes v. GilpinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1970
  5. DeFeo v. DeFeoDelaware Family Court · 1981

2 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