§
In the Matter of B

4 Cited authorities

  1. Ryder v. Ryder

    2 Cal.App.2d 426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)   Cited 35 times

    Docket No. 5164. November 26, 1934. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County and from orders granting alimony, counsel fees and costs. W.D.L. Held, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles Kasch for Appellant. Walter Barry and F. Walter French, Amici Curiae, on Behalf of Appellant. Taft Spurr for Respondent. PULLEN, P.J. In this action for divorce the trial court granted the motions of plaintiff for maintenance, counsel fees and court costs

  2. Kegley v. Kegley

    16 Cal.App.2d 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 29 times

    Docket No. 5531. August 22, 1936. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frank M. Smith, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Burger Tinglof and Manuel Ruiz, Jr., for Appellant. Nichols, Cooper Hickson for Respondent. PULLEN, P.J. Plaintiff and defendant were married in Los Angeles in 1921. Being unable to live amicably as husband and wife, defendant suggested to plaintiff that a legal and valid divorce could be obtained through the courts

  3. People v. Harlow

    9 Cal.App.2d 643 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Harlow, 9 Cal.App.2d 643, 646 [ 50 P.2d 1052], which involved a Mexican decree of divorce, it was held that by section 1917 of the Code of Civil Procedure the jurisdiction of Mexican courts must be "over the cause, over the parties, and over the thing, when a specific thing is the subject of the judgment."

  4. Sorensen v. Sorensen

    219 App. Div. 344 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)   Cited 7 times

    February 4, 1927. Appeal from Supreme Court of Kings County. William H. Good, for the appellant. Richmond J. Reese [ George C. Howard with him on the brief], for the respondent. KAPPER, J. The parties entered into a ceremonial marriage on May 25, 1900. In the month of February, 1901, a child was born of this marriage who is now living. Prior to said ceremonial marriage, defendant had intermarried with one Westerdahl, in Denmark. Westerdahl and the defendant were both natives of Denmark and were living