Fleming v. Fleming
Citations
- 95 Cal. 430
- 30 P. 566
- 1892 Cal. LEXIS 842
Syllabus
<p>Divorce — Extreme Cruelty — Consideration of Ciroumstanoes. — What acts of a spouse will constitute extreme cruelty, within the meaning of the statute providing for a divorce upon that ground, cannot he defined with precision; but each case is to be determined, according to its own peculiar circumstances, by the good sense and judgment of the court or jury, keeping always in view the intelligence, apparent refinement, and delicacy of sentiment of the complaining party.</p> <p>Id. — Grievous Mental Suffering — Question of Fact. — Whether in any given case there has been inflicted grievous mental suffering upon one of the spouses is a pure question of fact to be deduced from all the circumstances of each particular case.</p> <p>Id.—Pleading — Attempt at Intercourse with Domestic — Publicity of Charge — Injury to Wife’s Health — Conclusiveness of Finding. — Where a complaint, in an action for a divorce by a wife on the ground of extreme cruelty, alleged that the defendant attempted to have sexual intercourse with their domestic, and that such conduct on the part of the defendant received great publicity by reason of a complaint having been made by the domestic before a magistrate, charging the defendant with assault with intent to commit a rape upon her, and that afterwards he threatened to turn the plaintiff out upon the world penniless unless she would help him to keep the domestic from prosecuting him on the complaint, and that such conduct on the part of the defendant, and the publicity given to it, caused the plaintiff grievous mental suffering, thereby greatly impairing her health, it cannot be said, as a matter of ' law, that such conduct did not inflict grievous mental suffering upon her, and a finding by the court that it did is conclusive upon appeal, in the absence of evidence in the record.</p> <p>Id.—Presumption — Intention to Annoy Wife.—Such conduct of the defendant being voluntary and inconsistent with marital integrity, it will be conclusively presu
Judges: Paterson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Andrews v. AndrewsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-24· cited 49×
- LaMar v. LaMarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1947-11-21· cited 44×
- Ungemach v. UngemachCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1943-10-18· cited 41×
- Keener v. KeenerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-08-19· cited 37×
- Scheibe v. ScheibeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1943-02-26· cited 32×
- Tompkins v. TompkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1947-12-23· cited 26×
- Fleck v. FleckNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1953-05-15· cited 22×
- Williams v. WilliamsMontana Supreme Court· 1929-07-11· cited 18×
- Kapp v. District Court of the Seventh Judicial DistrictNevada Supreme Court· 1909-07-15· cited 14×
- Mahnken v. MahnkenNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1900-05-02· cited 14×
- Bilger v. BilgerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1942-10-06· cited 13×
- Judson Adm. v. AndersonMontana Supreme Court· 1945-11-20· cited 13×
- Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-06-05· cited 13×
- Clewett v. ClewettCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-11-14· cited 10×
- McFall v. McFallCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1943-04-16· cited 10×
- Hayes v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1960-06-09· cited 10×
- McClenahan v. McClenahanSuperior Court of Delaware· 1911-03-25· cited 9×
- Bill v. BillSupreme Court of Iowa· 1916-04-07· cited 9×
- Axtmayer v. OrtizSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1913-05-19· cited 7×
- Perry v. PerryCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1949-09-22· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.