TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Springer v. Springer

Sadie W. SPRINGER, Appellant, v. Roscoe C. SPRINGER, Appellee

Springer v. Springer, 248 A.2d 822 (D.C. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 8, 1969
Docket
No. 4300
Judges
Hood, Myers, Kern
Citations
248 A.2d 8221969 D.C. App. LEXIS 194

Opinion — Kern

KERN, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding appellee-husband an absolute divorce on the ground of voluntary separation. Appellant-wife had filed a cross-claim for absolute divorce on the ground of constructive desertion by appellee, to wit, that he was guilty of such cruelty as to have justified her withdrawal from the marital abode.

After trial, the court made findings that the parties were married in the District of Columbia in 1939; that one child was born of this marriage who is now an adult; that the wife voluntarily left the parties’ home in 1962; that they lived separate and apart from that date; that the husband had not committed any acts of cruelty against the wife or otherwise by his actions contributed to their separation; and that the parties had voluntarily entered into a Property Settlement Agreement at the time of their separation in July, 1962.

Appellant reviews at length and in detail the evidence adduced below and con *823 tends that the trial court incorrectly evaluated such evidence and should have found that she, and not her husband, was the aggrieved party and entitled to the divorce. Our function is limited to reviewing the record and we may disturb the trial court’s ultimate findings and conclusions only if they are clearly erroneous or without evidence to support them. See D.C. Code 1967, § 17-305(a); Washington Tent and Awning Co. v. 818 Ranch, Inc., D.C.App., 248 A.2d 126 , decided November 29, 1968.

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and we conclude that the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and that there is evidence to support them. Accordingly, the judgment below is Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1970: 21972: 21974: 11975: 11977: 11983: 11991: 11997: 119702026peak 1970 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sheridan v. Sheridan267 A.2d 343 (D.C. 1970)
  2. Roberson v. Roberson297 A.2d 769 (D.C. 1972)
  3. Parking Management, Inc. v. Gilder343 A.2d 51 (D.C. 1975)
  4. Monacelli v. Monacelli296 A.2d 445 (D.C. 1972)
  5. American Bankers Insurance Co. v. United States596 A.2d 598 (D.C. 1991)
  6. Pennington v. United States471 A.2d 250 (D.C. 1983)

Most recent

  1. Spriggs v. Bode691 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1997)
  2. American Bankers Insurance Co. v. United States596 A.2d 598 (D.C. 1991)
  3. Pennington v. United States471 A.2d 250 (D.C. 1983)
  4. Williams v. Williams378 A.2d 668 (D.C. 1977)
  5. Parking Management, Inc. v. Gilder343 A.2d 51 (D.C. 1975)
  6. Cefaratti v. Cefaratti315 A.2d 142 (D.C. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Wash. Tent & Awning Co. v. 818 Ranch, Inc., 248 A.2d 126 (D.C. 1968) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list