Legal Opinion

Runsvold v. Runsvold

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 13, 1943No. Civ. No. 14212PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Prouty v. ProutyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Bancroft v. BancroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Taber v. TaberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Bancroft v. BancroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Black v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Gudelj v. GudeljCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Radford v. MatczukCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
  3. Strong v. OwensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  4. Noon v. NoonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Morgan v. MorganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

4 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