Legal Opinion

Falk v. Falk

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 1941No. Civ. No. 6647PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT

The defendant has appealed from an order allowing plaintiff alimony pendente lite and anticipated costs on three appeals from an interlocutory decree of divorce which was rendered in her favor on the grounds of adultery and extreme cruelty.

The appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in allowing plaintiff $200 per month as alimony pendente lite, and $576.50 as costs for the three appeals, since the evidence shows that she has adequate income from her own property, and that the allowances were therefore unnecessary. It is also claimed the order for costs on the appeals…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gay v. GayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Wilder v. WilderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Bohnert v. BohnertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. People v. SansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Sweeley v. SweeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Patton v. PattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Tanzola v. De RitaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Vartanian v. CrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

26 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