ROBERT L. DINGS, PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
GLADYS H. DINGS, RESPONDENT, CROSS-PETITIONER

Fla. | 1964-06-17
No. 33468
DREW, C. J., and THORNAL, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
165 So. 2d 168 Florida Supreme Court (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the motion for extension of time for filing respondent’s brief, the Court has examined the petition and cross-petition for certiorari in this cause and the supporting record and briefs of the parties. It appearing that the petitions fail to allege any ground for invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., it is

Ordered that said petitions be, and they are hereby,

Dismissed.

DREW, C. J., and THORNAL, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • DuVERNOY v. DuVERNOY, 202 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
    …tinuing Legal Education, it is said: “Failure of a divorce judgment to award alimony bars the wife from subsequently applying for alimony under § 65.15, Fla.Stat.1963. Dings v. Dings, Fla.App., 161 So. 2d 227 (3d D.C.A. Fla.1964), cert. dism. Fla., 165 So. 2d 168. Accordingly, counsel should be absolutely sure to have a provision in the final judgment reserving jurisdiction to award alimony or have a nominal sum awarded that would enable the wife to petition for modification at such time as circumstances mig…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw