¶1In denying the petition for a rehearing of this cause we are not to be understood as approving that part of the opinion of the district court of appeal which implies that, after an interlocutory decree of divorce has become final by the lapse of six months from its entry without appeal or • motion to set it aside, the plaintiff has not the right to dismiss his or her action at any time before the entry of a final decree. The interlocutory decree, when final, merely establishes conclusively the right of the plaintiff to a divorce. It does not necessarily follow that he or she may not waive the exercise of that right. Whether the plaintiff could have done so was not a question arising on this appeal, and it is not decided.
7 Cal. Unrep. 345
Barron v. Barron
Decided June 11, 1908
California Supreme Court · decided 1908-06-11
H. Kerrigan, Judge. Action for divorce by Rita A. Barron against George H. Barron. Prom an order denying a motion by plaintiff to dismiss a motion by defendant to set aside and vacate an order on motion of plaintiff, setting aside and vacating an interlocutory judgment for plaintiff, and from an order granting the motion of defendant sought to be dismissed, plaintiff appeals.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1908-06-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1939
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →