Wisecup v. Wisecup

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• The Court declined to open the decree in divorce, finding that appellant failed to show “extrinsic fraud promptly complained of after its discovery”.
• Appellant’s efforts to vacate a divorce decree 16 years after its entry was denied where he possessed information to forestall entry of the decree but took no action; henceforth, relitigation was foreclosed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).