# Rothman v. Rothman

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · January 17, 1956 · 180 Pa. Super. 421

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762117

## Case

- **Full name:** Rothman v. Rothman, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 17, 1956
- **Citations:** 180 Pa. Super. 421; 119 A.2d 584; 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 585
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Wright
- **Judges:** Rhodes, Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Hike
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762117

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762117. Public record. Not legal advice.