Vining v. Vining

Supreme Court of Georgia

Vining v. Vining

241 S.E.2d 826, 240 Ga. 616, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 737

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 31, 1978

Docket33153

StatusPublished

This text of 241 S.E.2d 826 (Vining v. Vining) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vining v. Vining, 241 S.E.2d 826, 240 Ga. 616, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 737 (Ga. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Justice.

Appellee, former husband of the appellant, brought his petition for contempt alleging that appellant had violated the terms of the divorce decree requiring her to deliver to him on a specified date certain real property and to divide certain personal property. Appellant complains [617]*617of the overruling of her motion to strike certain paragraphs of the petition as being irrelevant, denying her motion to dismiss, and holding her in contempt after a hearing. No transcript is included, the contention being that the trial court’s orders were erroneous as a matter of law.

Submitted January 13, 1978 Decided January 31, 1978. D. D. Veal, for appellant. Lawrence, Rice & Lawrence, George D. Lawrence, Sr., for appellee.

We have carefully examined the record and conclude that the rulings of the trial court were not erroneous for any of the reasons specified by the appellant. See Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244 (1) (236 SE2d 599) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Jordan, Justice.

Appellee, former husband of the appellant, brought his petition for contempt alleging that appellant had violated the terms of the divorce decree requiring her to deliver to him on a specified date certain real property and to divide certain personal property. Appellant complains [617]*617of the overruling of her motion to strike certain paragraphs of the petition as being irrelevant, denying her motion to dismiss, and holding her in contempt after a hearing. No transcript is included, the contention being that the trial court’s orders were erroneous as a matter of law.

Submitted January 13, 1978 Decided January 31, 1978. D. D. Veal, for appellant. Lawrence, Rice & Lawrence, George D. Lawrence, Sr., for appellee.

We have carefully examined the record and conclude that the rulings of the trial court were not erroneous for any of the reasons specified by the appellant. See Griggers v. Bryant, 239 Ga. 244 (1) (236 SE2d 599) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.E.2d 826, 240 Ga. 616, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vining-v-vining-ga-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack