In the Matter of Gerace

5 Cited authorities

  1. Hamrick v. Hamrick

    119 Cal.App.2d 839 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 18 times
    In Hamrick v. Hamrick, 119 Cal.App.2d 839, 260 P.2d 188, it was also held that a decree of divorce entered nunc pro tunc after the death of John Hamrick validated an otherwise void marriage entered into by him prior to the entry of a final decree.
  2. Mazzenga v. Rosso

    87 Cal.App.2d 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)   Cited 17 times
    In Mazzenga v. Rosso, 87 Cal.App.2d 790 [ 197 P.2d 770], the first wife contended that "The rights of a `putative wife' do not prevail over those of the `de jure' wife upon the death of the bigamous husband."
  3. Lieng v. Quia

    228 U.S. 335 (1913)   Cited 6 times
    In Sy Joc Lieng et al. v. Sy Quia et al., 228 U.S. 335, 33 S.Ct. 514, 515, 57 L.Ed. 862, a person who claimed to be offspring of a marriage consummated in 1847 attacked a subsequent marriage consummated in 1853, which latter marriage continued until 1894 when dissolved by death of one of the parties.
  4. Gainey v. Gainey

    119 Cal.App.2d 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    Docket No. 4589. August 6, 1953. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County granting a new trial. Robert B. Burch, Judge. Affirmed. Clinton F. Jones for Appellant. George A. Westover and E.V. Cavanagh for Respondent. MUSSELL, J. This is an action for separate maintenance. Plaintiff married one Arthur Polk in Genessee County, Michigan, on or about April 12, 1935. Soon thereafter the parties to this marriage separated and did not live together thereafter. In 1936 plaintiff met the

  5. Estate of Newman

    34 Cal.App.2d 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939)   Cited 5 times

    Docket No. 2462. September 27, 1939. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. H.G. Ames, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. C.B. Conlin and E.R. Simon for Appellants. Forgy, Reinhaus Forgy for Respondents. GRIFFIN, J. John William Newman died October 30, 1937, and left a will and codicil in which he referred to Catherine L. Newman, one of the respondents herein, as his wife, nominated her as executrix and left her his entire estate. The will and