Legal Opinion

Kepfler v. Kepfler

California Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1901No. S.F. No. 1904PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, C.

Action for divorce on the grounds of habitual intemperance of defendant, inflicting a course of great mental anguish upon plaintiff, and the extreme cruelty of defendant. The defendant had judgment. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, and appeals from the order denying her motion. There is no appeal from the judgment.

1. The first point urged by appellant is, that findings were not filed until more than six months after the case was submitted for decision and the court had ordered judgment for defendant. This is not one of the grounds for a new trial specified in the code. (See Code…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Owen v. Pomona Land and Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Reclamation District No. 556 v. ThisbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Rauer v. FayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Fogarty v. FogartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Diamond v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. City of Los Angeles v. HannonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  3. Stampfli v. StampfliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. Eddy v. American Amusement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
  5. Fillmore v. FillmoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

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