Hull v. Hull

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hull v. Hull

386 A.2d 213, 120 R.I. 980, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 867

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 20, 1978

DocketAppeal No. 76-407

StatusPublished

This text of 386 A.2d 213 (Hull v. Hull) 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

Hull v. Hull, 386 A.2d 213, 120 R.I. 980, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 867 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

This is before us on a wife’s motion that we “reinstate” an order entered on July 9, 1976, in the Family Court, directing the husband to pay $75 a week for the support of five minor children. Previous to that time the husband had been ordered to pay the wife $50 a week for child support. The wife states that on January 28, 1977, the trial justice stayed¹ his original order and since that date the husband has been paying $50 a week.

We will treat the motion to reinstate as a motion to stay the January 28, 1977 stay issued by the trial justice. Since we have this day issued an opinion in the above-entitled case sustaining the husband’s appeal from the July 9, 1976 order, there is no necessity that we consider the wife’s motion. [981]*981Accordingly, the motion is denied pro forma.

Joseph A. Capineri, for plaintiff. John D. Lynch, for defendant.

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

This is before us on a wife’s motion that we “reinstate” an order entered on July 9, 1976, in the Family Court, directing the husband to pay $75 a week for the support of five minor children. Previous to that time the husband had been ordered to pay the wife $50 a week for child support. The wife states that on January 28, 1977, the trial justice stayed¹ his original order and since that date the husband has been paying $50 a week.

We will treat the motion to reinstate as a motion to stay the January 28, 1977 stay issued by the trial justice. Since we have this day issued an opinion in the above-entitled case sustaining the husband’s appeal from the July 9, 1976 order, there is no necessity that we consider the wife’s motion. [981]*981Accordingly, the motion is denied pro forma.

Joseph A. Capineri, for plaintiff. John D. Lynch, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 A.2d 213, 120 R.I. 980, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-hull-ri-1978.