Barron v. Barron

96 P. 273, 7 Cal. Unrep. 345, 1908 Cal. LEXIS 579
California Supreme Court·Decided June 11, 1908·No. Civ. No. 432 and S. F. No. 4509·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In denying the petition for a rehearing of this cause we are not to be understood as approving that part of the opinion of the district court of appeal which implies that, after an interlocutory decree of divorce has become final by the lapse of six months from its entry without appeal or • motion to set it aside, the plaintiff has not the right to dismiss his or her action at any time before the entry of a final decree. The interlocutory decree, when final, merely establishes conclusively the right of the plaintiff to a divorce. It does not necessarily follow that he or she may not waive the exercise of that right. Whether the plaintiff could have done so was not a question arising on this appeal, and it is not decided.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barron v. Barron, 96 P. 273, 7 Cal. Unrep. 345, 1908 Cal. LEXIS 579 (Cal. 1908).

96 P. 273 (Barron v. Barron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Radermacher v. Sutphen
92 P.2d 1070 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1939)
Butler v. Bolinger
133 So. 778 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1931)
State ex rel. Morris v. Superior Court
223 P. 583 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
Olson v. Superior Court
165 P. 706 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Reed v. Reed
100 P. 897 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)