Legal Opinion

Heinz v. Heinz

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 13, 1946No. Civ. 14847PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From a judgment awarding the custody of the minor son of the parties hereto to plaintiff, defendant appeals.

There are also appeals from orders (a) modifying the foregoing judgment and (b) denying defendant’s motion for leave to renew an application to modify the judgment.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (respondent), and pursuant to the rules set forth in Estate of Isenberg, 63 Cal.App.2d 214, 216 et seq. [146 P.2d 424], the record discloses the following facts:

On June 27, 1938, plaintiff and defendant were married. In the latter part of March, 1939,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. IsenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  2. Crater v. CraterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Simmons v. SimmonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. Zellerbach v. AllenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. In Re Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tossman v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Blow v. LottmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Smith v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API