Krieble v. Krieble
Cynthia C. Krieble v. Frederick Brayton Krieble
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony awarded to the plaintiff in its judgment granting a divorce to her on the uneontested ground of desertion. Despite the vigor with which the appeal has been prosecuted and defended and the substantial amounts involved in the award made by the trial court, the issue remains a simple one.
It is well settled that the trial court’s decision as to the type and amount of alimony awarded in a divorce action is based upon the circumstances of the parties to the action and “is within the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the circumstances of the case such as the amount of the estate of the husband, his income, his age, health and earning capacity and the age, health, station *8 and separate estate of the wife.”
Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 488 , 352 A.2d 277 ; see also Wood v. Wood, 165 Conn. 777, 783 , 345 A.2d 5 ;
Hotkowski v. Hotkowski, 165 Conn. 167, 170 , 328 A.2d 674 ;
Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345 , 307 A.2d 146 .
Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and reached its decision by the application of the standards which have been well established by our cases.
There is no error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Grailich v. Grailich, No. Fa00-016 16 21 S (Oct. 22, 2001)
- Mortara v. Mortara, No. Fa 00-033 89 52 S (Sep. 10, 2001)
- Walker v. Walker, No. Fa 98 0078300 (Jan. 3, 2001)
- Nemerov v. Nemerov, No. 32 17 65 (Sep. 25, 1997)
- Pimentel v. Pimentel, No. 31 65 67 (Nov. 1, 1995)
- O'Rielly v. O'rielly, No. 31 39 82 (Mar. 28, 1995)
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.