TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sellars v. Sellars

Sellars v. Sellars, 248 P.2d 1063 (Idaho 1952)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Idaho Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 7, 1952
Docket
No. 7815
Judges
Givens, Porter, Taylor, Thomas, Keeton
Citations
248 P.2d 106373 Idaho 1631952 Ida. LEXIS 225

Opinion — Givens

GIVENS, Chief Justice.

Appellant sued respondent, her husband, for separate maintenance, alleging his refusal to support her, abandonment, and physical mistreatment.

Respondent denied her accusations and cross-complained for divorce on the grounds of her making false accusations of immoral relations with other women and infection with a venereal disease — all causing him mental suffering.

The appeal herein is from the decree granting respondent a divorce, and all appellant’s assignments of error center in the contention the evidence is insufficient to support the findings.

The trial judge is the arbiter of conflicting evidence and his determination of *165 the weight, credibility, inferences and implications thereof is not to be supplanted by this Court’s impressions or conclusions from the written record. Piatt v. Piatt, 32 Idaho 407 , 184 P. 470 ; Cox v. Cox, 45 Idaho 49 , 260 P. 693 ; Clark v. Clark, 58 Idaho 37 , 69 P.2d 980 ; Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 68 Idaho 275 , 193 P.2d 391 .

Appellant urges that accusations of the kind made here, though false, nevertheless if based upon probable cause, would not constitute cruelty. The trial court saw and heard the witnesses and could thus better determine whether there was probable cause and whether the charges were false or baseless, and also determine the effect of the charges on respondent’s health.

There was substantial evidence to which the trial court could give credence that there was no reasonable justification or, indeed, any justification for the accusations and that they were false and that respondent’s health was injuriously affected thereby.

Conceding that other conclusions could have been drawn, the evidence is sufficient to support his findings and conclusion drawn therefrom, and it would serve no useful purpose to go into the details of the evidence pro or con.

The decree is, therefore, affirmed.

PORTER, TAYLOR, THOMAS, and KEETON, JJ., concur.

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 →
1953: 11954: 21958: 11959: 21960: 11961: 11962: 11963: 21964: 21965: 11966: 31970: 21972: 11979: 119532026peak 1966 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gapsch v. Gapsch277 P.2d 278 (Idaho 1954)
  2. Angleton v. Angleton370 P.2d 788 (Idaho 1962)
  3. Jensen v. Bledsoe593 P.2d 988 (Idaho 1979)
  4. Meridian Bowling Lanes, Inc. v. Brown412 P.2d 586 (Idaho 1966)
  5. Howay v. Howay264 P.2d 691 (Idaho 1953)
  6. State ex rel. Child v. Clouse477 P.2d 834 (Idaho 1970)

Most recent

  1. Jensen v. Bledsoe593 P.2d 988 (Idaho 1979)
  2. Shepard v. Shepard497 P.2d 321 (Idaho 1972)
  3. State ex rel. Child v. Clouse477 P.2d 834 (Idaho 1970)
  4. Brammer v. Brammer471 P.2d 58 (Idaho 1970)
  5. Reed v. Green414 P.2d 445 (Idaho 1966)
  6. Meridian Bowling Lanes, Inc. v. Brown412 P.2d 586 (Idaho 1966)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Piatt v. Piatt, 184 P. 470 (Idaho 1919) 32
Clark v. Clark, 69 P.2d 980 (Idaho 1937) 14
Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 193 P.2d 391 (Idaho 1948) 14
Cox v. Cox, 260 P. 693 (Idaho 1927) 1

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