Runsvold v. Runsvold
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.
Defendant appeals from an interlocutory decree of divorce which, he asserts, is too harsh to be just. He makes two assignments, to wit: (1) the court erred in finding that plaintiff is a fit and proper person to have the custody of the minor children, ages two and six, and that defendant is not a fit and proper person to have such custody; (2) the court erred in its conclusion and the ensuing judgment that defendant is not entitled, nor shall he be permitted, to visit the minor children for a period of six months, and then only upon order of court after hearing. ,
In proceedings where the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Prouty v. ProutyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Bancroft v. BancroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Taber v. TaberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Bancroft v. BancroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Black v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gudelj v. GudeljCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Radford v. MatczukCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- Strong v. OwensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Noon v. NoonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Morgan v. MorganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.