Legal Opinion

Lindley v. Lindley

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 21, 1920No. Civ. No. 3283PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, P. J.

The plaintiff sought and obtained an interlocutory decree of divorce. Service on the defendant, a nonresident, was by publication. Less than six months after the entry of the decree the defendant made a motion, supported by an affidavit of facts, an affidavit of merits, and his proposed answer, to vacate and set aside the default and the interlocutory decree, and for permission to answer. The court denied the motion, and from that order the defendant appeals on the judgment-roll alone.

Only one question requiring consideration is presented. The defendant was a resident of the state of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Matter of the Estate Op Bernard NewManCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Sichler v. LookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Heinlen v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Herman v. SanteeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. La Fetra v. GleasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Otsuka v. BalangueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Call v. Los Angeles County General HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Vail v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. María Arrarás v. María ArzuagaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938
  5. Arrarás v. ArzuagaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API