Barbour v. Barbour

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• record must demonstrate a compelling reason for the court to reject the provisions of a stipulation
• under the previous statute the Supreme Court stated that the trial court should be guided by the statutory factors when making findings as to the child’s best interest
• since facts essential to the disposition of the custody issue had not been stated, that portion of the order dealing with custody reversed and remanded
• agreements regarding stipulations to property division will not be lightly overturned
• repealed 1985, No. 181 (Adj. Sess.), § 10

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re B.S.
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1997-03-28· cited 62×
• Nevitt v. Nevitt
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1990-11-30· cited 38×
• Peckham v. Peckham
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1988-03-04· cited 21×
• Bancroft v. Bancroft
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1990-06-15· cited 21×
• Plante v. Plante
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1987-07-10· cited 15×
• Poulin v. Upham
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1987-12-04· cited 12×
• Damone v. Damone
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2001-09-14· cited 10×
• Esquibel v. Esquibel
  Wyoming Supreme Court· 1996-06-03· cited 5×
• In Re BS
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1997-03-28

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• White v. White
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1982-07-30· cited 24×
• Mayer v. Mayer
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1984-03-02· cited 22×
• Lumbra v. Lumbra
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1978-11-02· cited 21×
• Strope v. Strope
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1973-04-03· cited 19×
• Berlin v. Berlin
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1981-02-05· cited 9×
• Korshak v. Korshak
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1982-02-02· cited 4×