Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti

231 F.2d 776, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 29, 1956
Docket12965_1
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 231 F.2d 776 (Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 F.2d 776, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathilda-fioravanti-v-quirino-fioravanti-cadc-1956.