§

In the Matter of Ganoza

15 I&N Dec. 593 (B.I.A. 1976)
In the Matter of Ganoza

3 Cited authorities

  1. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel

    16 N.Y.2d 64 (N.Y. 1965)   Cited 77 times
    In Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 1965, 16 N.Y.2d 64, 262 N.Y.S.2d 86, 209 N.E.2d 709, 13 A.L.R.3d 1401, cert. den. 384 U.S. 971, 86 S.Ct. 1861, 16 L.Ed.2d 682, the Court of Appeals of New York was presented with the question whether such a bilateral divorce granted in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, was entitled to recognition in New York State.

  2. Ramm v. Ramm

    28 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. 1971)   Cited 5 times

    Argued April 12, 1971 Decided May 12, 1971 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, LESTER HOLTZMAN, J. Albert A. DuPont, Paul C. Ludwig, Jr. and Stephen J. Masse for appellant. Martin J. Rosen and David Miller Kahn for respondents. Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division. Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON. Judge SCILEPPI dissents and votes to reverse on the dissenting opinion

  3. Hytell v. Hytell

    44 Misc. 2d 663 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)   Cited 5 times
    In Hytell v. Hytell (44 Misc.2d 663, supra), on substantially the same facts, the Special Term held that the parties were legally and effectively divorced as of the date of the petition to the Mexican court. Mr. Justice BERNARD S. MEYER concluded as follows: "Plaintiff argues that Mexican law does not recognize a nunc pro tunc order and the experts for both parties so testified. The * * * decision in the Mexican proceeding was not a nunc pro tunc order, however, but the recording of plaintiff's submission to the court.