- 7 -
spect to each of the issues that are separately
set forth in such party’s statement of issues
required by (2) above.
* * * * * * *
ORDERED that the statement of issues required to
be included in each party’s further trial memorandum,
as ordered above, shall govern the admissibility of
evidence at the further trial in this case in that
evidence offered at such further trial by a party shall
be deemed irrelevant unless it pertains to one or more
of the issues set forth in such party’s statement of
issues. It is further
ORDERED that neither party shall be allowed to
advance a position or theory underlying that position
with respect to any of the issues required to be in-
cluded in the statement of issues, as ordered above,
which is different from the position and theory as to
each such issue required to be included in the state-
ment of positions and theories, as ordered above. * * *
The Court held the further trial in this case on August 21
through 23, 2000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some facts have been stipulated and are so found except as
stated herein.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in
San Rafael, California.
Petitioner, who was born in Russia, immigrated to the United
States in June 1979. During the years at issue, petitioner and
Ms. Brodsky were married. They divorced sometime after 1993.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011