U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1956

Mathilda Fioravanti v. Quirino Fioravanti

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 29, 1956 · Edgerton, Miller, Dana-Her

231 F.2d 776; 98 U.S. App. D.C. 23; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Charles H. Quimby, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Alvin L. Newmyer, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Alvin L. Newmyer, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Steadman v. Steadman (D.C. 1986)
DeFeo v. DeFeo (Delaware Family Court 1981)
Movius v. Movius (Mont. 1974)
DeGrazia v. DeGrazia (D.C. 1999)
Trezevant v. Trezevant (D.C. 1979)
Rhodes v. Gilpin (D.C. 1970)
Landers v. Landers (D.C. 1965)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.