Regli v. Regli

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Regli v. Regli

432 A.2d 1000, 288 Pa. Super. 534, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2412

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 3, 1981

Docket2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 432 A.2d 1000 (Regli v. Regli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Regli v. Regli, 432 A.2d 1000, 288 Pa. Super. 534, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2412 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an award of custody of the parties’ daughter, age 13 at the time of hearing, to her mother, the appellee herein. At the conclusion of the hearing and after the hearing judge had informed the parties of his decision, appellant departed the jurisdiction with his daughter. Appellant has been denied supersedeas by the hearing judge and by this court. After rule and hearing, during which appellant did not appear but was represented by counsel, appellant was found to be in contempt and on September 30, 1980, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. As of the date this appeal was presented to us, appellant is still defying the order herein disputed and the bench warrant is still outstanding.

Under the above circumstances we quash the appeal. Commonwealth ex rel. Goodwin v. Goodwin, 413 Pa. 551, 198 *536 A.2d 503 (1968); Commonwealth ex rel. Beemer v. Beemer, 200 Pa.Super. 103, 188 A.2d 475 (1962).

The appeal is quashed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from an award of custody of the parties’ daughter, age 13 at the time of hearing, to her mother, the appellee herein. At the conclusion of the hearing and after the hearing judge had informed the parties of his decision, appellant departed the jurisdiction with his daughter. Appellant has been denied supersedeas by the hearing judge and by this court. After rule and hearing, during which appellant did not appear but was represented by counsel, appellant was found to be in contempt and on September 30, 1980, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. As of the date this appeal was presented to us, appellant is still defying the order herein disputed and the bench warrant is still outstanding.

Under the above circumstances we quash the appeal. Commonwealth ex rel. Goodwin v. Goodwin, 413 Pa. 551, 198 *536 A.2d 503 (1968); Commonwealth ex rel. Beemer v. Beemer, 200 Pa.Super. 103, 188 A.2d 475 (1962).

The appeal is quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 A.2d 1000, 288 Pa. Super. 534, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regli-v-regli-pasuperct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack