STRAUS v. STRAUS (1935)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

STRAUS v. STRAUS.

Civ. 9071.

Decided: March 06, 1935

Harry J. Miller, of Los Angeles, for appellant. Goodman, Bachrack & Brownstone, of Los Angeles (Herman A. Bachrack, of Los Angeles, of counsel), for respondent.

In denying petition for rehearing in this case, we modify our original opinion by striking from the fifth paragraph thereof the words: “From the ineffectual denial by defendant of nonpayment of accrued alimony the trial court may well have concluded that defendant had fled to this state to avoid punishment for contempt of the New York court for such default; and since he had thus,” and substituting therefor: “Since defendant had evaded,” etc.

In response to appellant's suggestion that only two of the justices participating in the opinion were on the bench at the time of oral argument, it appears from the minutes that both counsel stipulated that any justice might participate whether present at time of oral argument or not; and it further appears from a reading of the reporter's notes of the brief argument thus made that there was no matter included in it that was not fully considered by the court before decision.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network