Opinion

Rothman v. Rothman

  • 180 Pa. Super. 421
  • 119 A.2d 584
  • 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 585
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 17, 1956
Status
Published
Author
Wright
On the bench
Rhodes, Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Hike
Cited by
21 cases

statutory authorization in divorce proceedings

How later courts described this case

  • statutory authorization in divorce proceedings

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Opinion by

Wright, J.,

Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part :

I agree with the majority that there was in this case a failure to demonstrate need. I would go further, *427 however, and hold that the petition should have been summarily dismissed because it was not filed in time. The Williams case, relied upon by the majority, does not control the present situation. We were there concerned with an application for counsel fees covering services rendered in resisting a request for reduction in the amount of alimony after divorce a mensa et thoro. Our decision was expressly based upon continuing jurisdiction to modify the decree in such regard. In the case at bar, a decree of absolute divorce was entered, a rule to vacate was discharged, and the appeal period expired. Debet esse finis litium.

Hike and Woodside, JJ., join in this opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.