In Re Smulevitz

California Court of Appeal

In Re Smulevitz

101 Cal. App. 2d 70

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 8, 1950

DocketCiv. No. 17687

StatusPublished

This text of 101 Cal. App. 2d 70 (In Re Smulevitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Smulevitz, 101 Cal. App. 2d 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

101 Cal.App.2d 70 (1950)

In re JAMES SMULEVITZ et al., for Change of Name.

Civ. No. 17687.

California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Three.

Dec. 8, 1950.

Albert H. Allen, Hyman Goldman and Michael J. Fasman for Appellants.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Earl O. Lippold, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondents.

VALLEE, J.

Appeal by petitioners from a minute order denying their petition for change of name.

[1] The ground on which the petition was denied was that petitioners had not resided within the state for at least one year prior to the filing of the petition. In Turesky v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.2d 838 [218 P.2d 784], it was held that the refusal to grant a change of name on that ground is arbitrary, without warrant of law, and an abuse of discretion.

On the authority of the Turesky case, the order denying the petition is reversed.

Shinn, P. J., and Wood (Parker), J., concurred.

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

101 Cal.App.2d 70 (1950)

In re JAMES SMULEVITZ et al., for Change of Name.

Civ. No. 17687.

California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. Three.

Dec. 8, 1950.

Albert H. Allen, Hyman Goldman and Michael J. Fasman for Appellants.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Earl O. Lippold, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondents.

VALLEE, J.

Appeal by petitioners from a minute order denying their petition for change of name.

[1] The ground on which the petition was denied was that petitioners had not resided within the state for at least one year prior to the filing of the petition. In Turesky v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.2d 838 [218 P.2d 784], it was held that the refusal to grant a change of name on that ground is arbitrary, without warrant of law, and an abuse of discretion.

On the authority of the Turesky case, the order denying the petition is reversed.

Shinn, P. J., and Wood (Parker), J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 Cal. App. 2d 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smulevitz-calctapp-1950.

Opinion

In re JAMES SMULEVITZ et al., for Change of Name.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack