John J. Cronan v. Laurie A. Cronan
Syllabus
The defendant, Laurie Cronan, appealed from a decision pending entry of final judgment entered by the general magistrate of the Family Court. On appeal, the defendant submitted that the general magistrate was not authorized to preside over the contested divorce trial of her and the plaintiff, John Cronan. The defendant additionally contended that the general magistrate erred in several respects on the merits of his decision. <br><br>The Supreme Court held that the defendant's arguments as to the general magistrate's authority to preside over a contested divorce trial were waived. The Supreme Court also addressed the claims of error as to the merits of the general magistrate's decision pending entry of final judgment. The Supreme Court held that the general magistrate did not err in any aspect of the equitable distribution of the marital assets, nor did he abuse his discretion in determining that the plaintiff met his burden of establishing the value of his premarital assets. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the general magistrate did not err in denying the defendant's claim for alimony. <br><br>Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Family Court. <br>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that the time and cost of effecting notice, which requires plaintiffs to carefully consider the consequences of filing class actions, deters frivolous class actions
- affirming denial of class certification because identifying class members based on each individual’s state of mind would be a “Sisyphean task”
- denying class certification because it would have been a \Sisyphean task\ to identify those individuals with viable claims
- denying class certification because it would have been a “Sisyphean task” to identify those individuals with viable claims
- declining to certify class because individual issues regarding knowledge of class members and other factors made the class unmanageable
- rejecting “any notion of due process which would place an absolute prohibition on all ex parte contacts or proceedings”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
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.