Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti

231 F.2d 776, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided March 29, 1956·No. 12965_1·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question is whether the District Court may in its discretion reduce or cancel, at a later date, periodic installments of payments for maintenance as of the date when application for such relief is made. We re-affirm our decision in Dausuel v. Dausuel, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 276, 195 F.2d 774, 775, that the court may do so. Cf. Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 380, 193 F.2d 677, 684, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 557, 96 L.Ed. 702; 6 A.L.R.2d 1277, 1328.

Affirmed.

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

Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti, 231 F.2d 776, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

231 F.2d 776 (Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeGrazia v. DeGrazia
741 A.2d 1057 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1999)
Steadman v. Steadman
514 A.2d 1196 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)
DeFeo v. DeFeo
428 A.2d 26 (Delaware Family Court, 1981)
Trezevant v. Trezevant
403 A.2d 1134 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979)
Movius v. Movius
517 P.2d 884 (Montana Supreme Court, 1974)
Rhodes v. Gilpin
264 A.2d 497 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1970)
Landers v. Landers
209 A.2d 798 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)