Trotter v. Trotter, 183 F.2d 997 (D.C. Cir. 1950). · Go Syfert
Search
Trotter v. Trotter, 183 F.2d 997 (D.C. Cir. 1950). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the continuing jurisdiction of a court of equity in such circumstances where the divorce decree is silent as to custody and support to deal with the custody and maintenance of a minor child is well established.”
13 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DeGroot v. DeGroot (dc, 2008-01-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) DeGroot v. DeGroot
D.C. · 2008 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the continuing jurisdiction of a court of equity in such circumstances where the divorce decree is silent as to custody and support to deal with the custody and maintenance of a minor child is well established.
discussed Cited "see" Mahoney v. Smith (In Re Smith) (2×)
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Trotter v. Trotter, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 213 , 183 F.2d 997 (D.C.App.1950).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Clark v. Clark (2×)
D.C. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Alves v. Alves, 346 A.2d 736, 738 (D.C.1975) (absence of prior court order not a bar to court’s consideration of a motion to increase support); Alves v. Alves, 262 A.2d 111, 117 (D.C.1970) (D.C.Code § 16-914 gives trial court con tinuing jurisdiction over issues of custody and child support even where the decree is silent as to custody or child support); see also Trotter v. Trotter, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 213 , 183 F.2d 997 (1950); Elkins v. Elkins, 55 App.D.C. 9 , 299 Fed. 690 (1924).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Bartlett v. Bartlett (4×)
D.C. Cir. · 1954 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Trotter v. Trotter, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 213 , 183 F.2d 997 ; and Steele v. Steele, 1948, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 254 , 168 F.2d 562 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trotter
v.
Trotter
10550.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jul 17, 1950.
183 F.2d 997
1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3034
Mr. Harry J. Harth, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Earl H. Davis, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. William E. McCollam, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Harry J. Ahern, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Edgerton, Miller, Proctor.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: District of Columbia Court of … (1)
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was granted a divorce from appellee. Although appellee had prayed for custody of their minor child and allowance for its support, the decree was silent as to both. However, the child remained in the care of appellee, with regular payments by appellant for its support. Several years later, upon discontinuance of such payments, appellee, in the same suit, filed a motion for custody and support for the child. This was opposed. Pending final hearing the court, upon consideration of counter-affidavits, ordered periodic payments for the child. Appellant defaulted and the court entered judgment for accumulated arrearages. From that judgment appellant appealed. He attacks the authority of the court to enter the judgment upon the ground that its jurisdiction concerning the child lapsed upon entry of the divorce decree with no reservation as to the child’s custody or maintenance.

We disagree with this contention. The continuing jurisdiction of a court of equity in such circumstances to deal with the custody and maintenance of a minor child is well established. See Elkins v. Elkins, 1924, 55 App.D.C. 9, 299 F. 690; Emrich v. McNeil, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 307, 126 F.2d 841, 146 A.L.R. 1146.

Affirmed.