Gold v. Gold

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Gold v. Gold

615 A.2d 1020, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 259, 1992 WL 352415

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 13, 1992

DocketNo. 91-497-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 615 A.2d 1020 (Gold v. Gold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gold v. Gold, 615 A.2d 1020, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 259, 1992 WL 352415 (R.I. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order issued to both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these appeals should not be summarily decided. Both parties had appealed from a decision pending entry of final judgment entered in a divorce action between them in the Family Court.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing counsel in oral argument, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown. The court is satisfied that the decision of the trial justice regarding the equitable distribution of the marital estate has come to a generally correct result in view of the discretion which the trial justices have when considering these matters.

For these reasons the appeals of the plaintiff and defendant are denied and dismissed, the decision appealed from is affirmed and the papers of the case are remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings.

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

ORDER

This matter came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order issued to both parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these appeals should not be summarily decided. Both parties had appealed from a decision pending entry of final judgment entered in a divorce action between them in the Family Court.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing counsel in oral argument, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown. The court is satisfied that the decision of the trial justice regarding the equitable distribution of the marital estate has come to a generally correct result in view of the discretion which the trial justices have when considering these matters.

For these reasons the appeals of the plaintiff and defendant are denied and dismissed, the decision appealed from is affirmed and the papers of the case are remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 A.2d 1020, 1992 R.I. LEXIS 259, 1992 WL 352415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-v-gold-ri-1992.