MATHILDA FIORAVANTI, APPELLANT,
v.
QUIRINO FIORAVANTI, APPELLEE
MATHILDA FIORAVANTI, APPELLANT,
QUIRINO FIORAVANTI, APPELLEE
231 F.2d 776
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1956)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The question is whether the District Court may in its discretion reduce or cancel, at a later date, periodic installments of payments for maintenance as of the date when application for such relief is made. We re-affirm our decision in Dausuel v. Dausuel, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 276, 195 F. 2d 774, 775, that the court may do so. Cf. Kephart v. Kephart, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 380, 193 F. 2d 677, 684, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 944, 72 S.Ct. 557, 96 L.Ed. 702; 6 A.L.R.2d 1277, 1328.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1959)
-
DOE v. DiGENOVA, 779 F.2d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. Len Chandler, 380 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1967)
Authorities Cited
- Kephart v. Kephart, 193 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
- Googins v. E. W. Hable & Sons, 342 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1952)
- Kephart v. Kephart, 342 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1952)
- Dausuel v. Dausuel, 195 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1952)