Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout and Lauretta M. Cimijotti

Eighth Circuit

Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout and Lauretta M. Cimijotti

340 F.2d 613

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 1965

Docket17775

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 340 F.2d 613 (Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout and Lauretta M. Cimijotti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eberhard F. Cimijotti v. Frances Paulsen, Clarice Sprout and Lauretta M. Cimijotti, 340 F.2d 613 (8th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This diversity lawsuit is manifestly an aftermath of domestic troubles and difficulties between Eberhard F. Cimijotti and his wife, Lauretta M. Cimijotti, which resulted in the latter obtaining a divorce in March, 1962. On October 26, 1962, Eberhard instituted this action against Lauretta, his former wife, Frances Paulsen who is Lauretta’s mother, and a third person, Clarice Sprout. Eberhard alleged that the defendants had conspired together to publish false and defamatory statements in certain ecclesiastical proceedings initiated by Lauretta for the purpose of obtaining church sanction to institute first a separate maintenance action and later the divorce proceeding. Eberhard sought actual, general and punitive damages in the sum of $128,500.00.

During discovery proceedings a controversy developed as to whether plaintiff was entitled to elicit answers to certain questions on depositions. The trial court decided he was not, 219 F.Supp. 621 (D.C.1963). Thereafter, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, 230 F.Supp. 39 (D.C.1964). From this judgment plaintiff appealed.

We have carefully considered all contentions advanced by plaintiff and are satisfied that the trial court properly concluded that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Therefore, on the basis of the trial court’s opinion, 230 F.Supp. 39, we affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

This diversity lawsuit is manifestly an aftermath of domestic troubles and difficulties between Eberhard F. Cimijotti and his wife, Lauretta M. Cimijotti, which resulted in the latter obtaining a divorce in March, 1962. On October 26, 1962, Eberhard instituted this action against Lauretta, his former wife, Frances Paulsen who is Lauretta’s mother, and a third person, Clarice Sprout. Eberhard alleged that the defendants had conspired together to publish false and defamatory statements in certain ecclesiastical proceedings initiated by Lauretta for the purpose of obtaining church sanction to institute first a separate maintenance action and later the divorce proceeding. Eberhard sought actual, general and punitive damages in the sum of $128,500.00.

During discovery proceedings a controversy developed as to whether plaintiff was entitled to elicit answers to certain questions on depositions. The trial court decided he was not, 219 F.Supp. 621 (D.C.1963). Thereafter, the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, 230 F.Supp. 39 (D.C.1964). From this judgment plaintiff appealed.

We have carefully considered all contentions advanced by plaintiff and are satisfied that the trial court properly concluded that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Therefore, on the basis of the trial court’s opinion, 230 F.Supp. 39, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 F.2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eberhard-f-cimijotti-v-frances-paulsen-clarice-sprout-and-lauretta-m-ca8-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack