Carl Switzer Personal life what was special about his personal life? Switzer and Collingwood got along well and married in Las Vegas three months later. In 1956, with his money running out and Diantha pregnant, what was his child name? Carl Switzer did they have any other children? Their son, Justin Lance Collingwood Switzer
did they stay married?
did  Carl Switzer and Collingwood stay married?
In early 1954, Switzer went on a blind date with Diantha (Dian) Collingwood, heiress of grain elevator empire Collingwood Grain. Collingwood had moved with her mother and sister to California in 1953 because her sister wanted to become an actress. Switzer and Collingwood got along well and married in Las Vegas three months later. In 1956, with his money running out and Diantha pregnant, his mother-in-law offered them a farm near Pretty Prairie, Kansas, west of Wichita. Their son, Justin Lance Collingwood Switzer (now Eldridge), was born that year. They divorced in 1957.  In 1987, former Our Gang co-star George "Spanky" McFarland recalled a meeting with Switzer when they spoke about the farm:  The last time I saw Carl was 1957. It was a tough time for me--and him. I was starting a tour of theme parks and county fairs in the Midwest. Carl had married this girl whose father owned a pretty good size farm near Wichita. When I came through town, he heard about it and called. He told me he was helping to run the farm, but he finally had to put a radio on the tractor while he was out there plowing. Knowing Carl, I knew that wasn't going to last. He may have come from Paris, Illinois, but he wasn't a farmer! We hadn't seen each other since we left the 'Gang.' So we had lunch. We talked about all the things you'd expect. And then I never saw him again. He looked pretty much the same. He was just Carl Switzer--kind of cocky, a little antsy--and I thought to myself he hadn't changed that much. He still talked big. He just grew up.  In January 1958 Switzer was getting into his car in front of a bar in Studio City, when a bullet smashed through the window and struck him in the upper right arm. The gunman was never caught. That December he was arrested in Sequoia National Forest for cutting down 15 pine trees; he was sentenced to a year's probation and ordered to pay a $225 fine. CANNOTANSWER
They divorced
Felipe de Alba (April 29, 1924 – November 15, 2005) was a Mexican attorney and character actor from the 1940s and 1950s. He appeared in films such as Robinson Crusoe (1954, directed by Luis Buñuel) and Real Women Have Curves (2002).

De Alba was briefly married to the actress Zsa Zsa Gabor. The wedding, however, was declared invalid, since the actress's prior marriage to Michael O'Hara had not been properly dissolved. The de Alba-Gabor union was annulled and they did not stay together.  De Alba relocated to New York City, and died there in 2005.

Personal life 
His marriage to Zsa Zsa Gabor is one of the shortest celebrity marriages in history. They were married 13 April 1983 but it was annulled the next day on 14 April 1983.

Filmography

References

External links

|-
!colspan="3" style="background:#C1D8FF;"| Husband of a Gabor Sister

1924 births
2005 deaths
20th-century Mexican male actors
Mexican lawyers
Mexican emigrants to the United States
20th-century lawyers Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors [2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

Background 
The case began in 2011, but had been moved to the desk of McGovern J after Kelly J was accused of objective bias.     

Brian and Mary Patricia O'Donnell, the appellants, were a married couple who brought a motion to the Court in order to remove any ownership they had in a variety of companies and properties. They sought to transfer them to their two sons, Blake O'Donnell and Bruce O'Donnell, the other two appellants. They had applied to the Supreme Court for a stay on an order made by McGovern J, which adjudicated their relationship with the plaintiffs in that case and Bank of Ireland, the respondent in this case.

Holding of the Supreme Court 
The Supreme Court, made up of Denham C.J , MacMenamin J and  Laffoy J in a unanimous decision dismissed the motion. The ruling was split into two parts, dealing with Mr and Mrs O'Donnell and their sons separately.  

Brian and Mary Patricia O' Donnell were declared bankrupt in 2013 and thus, their property rights were conferred to the Official Assignee as per section 44 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. They sought an order of a stay on the order of McGovern J. Under section 3 of the same Act, the term 'property' includes the right to litigate, which now rested with the Official Assignee as Mr and Mrs O'Donnell were declared bankrupt. Therefore, the Court found that this meant the first two appellants, Brian O'Donnell and Mary Patricia O'Donnell did not have locus standi. Although, some personal actions may rest with the appellants as opposed to the Official Assignee, litigation is not one of them. Subsequently, Mr and Mrs O'Donnell did not have the capacity to bring a motion before the court. The order for a stay could only be accepted if it is initiated by the Official Assignee in this case. Thus, the Court decided that Mr and Mrs O'Donnell could not raise a motion before the court as they did not have the capacity to do so and so dismissed their application for a stay. 

The remaining appellants, Bruce and Blake O'Donnell faced the same result. The Court found no reasons as to why they should be given a stay. They questioned McGovern J's previous connection with Bank of Ireland and alleged it could be the sole reason for his partiality towards the respondents (Bank of Ireland). However, the Court rejected their arguments of objective bias by referring to McGovern J's statement on that matter. He stated that he at the time had no outstanding debt with Bank of Ireland, although he had had in the past. Ultimately, the fact that McGovern J had a mortgage loan with Bank of Ireland in the past is not a valid reason for his recusal, as to do so is unreasonable. The only account he has with them is a current or savings account. Merely having a bank account with the said bank for his own private matters is irrelevant to this case as neither was he a shareholder nor did Bank of Ireland owe him any money. Furthermore, McGovern J went on to make the point that in a banking sector as small as Ireland's it would be impractical for every judge to step down each time they came upon a case in which the respondents were the ones they had personal banking arrangements with. In the matter of adjudicating the judgement for a stay the Court relied on Danske Bank v. McFadden. The Court also held that "[t]he law as to objective bias has been clearly stated by this Court: see Bula Ltd v. Tara Mines Ltd [2000] 4 I.R. 412; Kenny v. Trinity College Dublin [2008] 2 IR 40; O’Callaghan v. Mahon [2008] 2 IR 514; O’Ceallaigh v. An Bord Altranais [2011] IESC 50." Blake O'Donnell and Bruce O'Donnell, were not, therefore, granted an order for a stay either. However, the court did agree to prioritise this appeal case and hold a directions hearing with the parties concerned.    

The Court therefore denied the application for a stay, and the motion was dismissed.

Subsequent developments 

Mr Brian O'Donnell claimed he would be taking his case to the European courts as he was deeply unsatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court in its ruling said there are no solid issues on the basis of which the case can be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

See also 

 Supreme Court of Ireland
 Standing (law)

External links
Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors

References

Supreme Court of Ireland cases
2015 in case law
2015 in Irish law
2015 in the Republic of Ireland Stay-at-home may refer to:

 Stay-at-home dad, a male parent who is the main caregiver of the children and the home
 Stay-at-home daughter, a woman who lives at home until she is married
 Stay-at-home defenceman, a hockey defenceman who plays a very defensive minded game
 Stay-at-home mom, a female parent who is the main caregiver of the children and the home
 Stay-at-home order, a quarantine measure to control spreading of a disease