Supreme Court of Vermont· 4/6/1990
Downs v. Downs
Citations
- 574 A.2d 156
- 154 Vt. 161
- 1990 Vt. LEXIS 56
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that property and maintenance decisions are so closely related that both matters must be reconsidered on remand
- noting that property and maintenance decisions are so closely related that both matters must be reconsidered on remand “to allow the trial court leave to revise it if necessary”
- noting that property and maintenance decisions are so closely related that both matters must be reconsidered on remand \to allow the trial court leave to revise it if necessary\
- noting that property and maintenance decisions are so closely related that both matters must be reconsidered on remand
- maintenance is more than just a means of providing bare necessities — it is a flexible tool that can equalize the parties’ standard of living for an appropriate period of time
- increased earning capacity caused by professional degree is not property subject to equitable division
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Allen, Peck, Gibson, Dooley, Morse
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Holterman v. HoltermanNew York Court of Appeals· 2004-06-10· cited 158×
- Simmons v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-03-24· cited 72×
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont· 1992-03-06· cited 63×
- Chaker v. ChakerSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-08-10· cited 40×
- Semprebon v. SemprebonSupreme Court of Vermont· 1991-07-19· cited 33×
- In Re the Marriage of LeeMontana Supreme Court· 1997-05-13· cited 27×
- Strauss v. StraussSupreme Court of Vermont· 1993-06-11· cited 23×
- Bancroft v. BancroftSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-06-15· cited 21×
- Molleur v. MolleurSupreme Court of Vermont· 2012-03-09· cited 17×
- Downs v. DownsSupreme Court of Vermont· 1993-01-08· cited 17×
- Scott v. ScottSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-12-21· cited 17×
- Clapp v. ClappSupreme Court of Vermont· 1994-11-04· cited 15×
- Justis v. RistSupreme Court of Vermont· 1992-09-18· cited 15×
- Jenike v. JenikeSupreme Court of Vermont· 2004-08-03· cited 9×
- In Re Marriage of DentonCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1996-12-24· cited 5×
- Boisclair v. BoisclairSupreme Court of Vermont· 2004-05-12· cited 3×
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- O'Brien v. O'BrienNew York Court of Appeals· 1985-12-26· cited 434×
- In Re the Marriage of WashburnWashington Supreme Court· 1984-02-16· cited 156×
- Mahoney v. MahoneySupreme Court of New Jersey· 1982-12-15· cited 123×
- Saint-Pierre v. Saint-PierreSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1984-10-03· cited 94×
- In Re the Marriage of HorstmannSupreme Court of Iowa· 1978-03-22· cited 88×
- Marriage of DeLa Rosa v. DeLa RosaSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1981-08-28· cited 85×
- Drapek v. DrapekMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1987-02-17· cited 72×
- Hubbard v. HubbardSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1979-11-13· cited 70×
- Stevens v. StevensOhio Supreme Court· 1986-04-23· cited 48×
- DeWitt v. DeWittCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1980-06-20· cited 38×
- In Re the Marriage of OlarSupreme Court of Colorado· 1987-12-21· cited 37×
- Buttura v. ButturaSupreme Court of Vermont· 1983-06-07· cited 22×
- DeGrace v. DeGraceSupreme Court of Vermont· 1986-12-01· cited 21×
- Hodge v. HodgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-08-05· cited 20×
- Klein v. KleinSupreme Court of Vermont· 1990-02-02· cited 18×
- McCrea v. McCreaSupreme Court of Vermont· 1988-07-15· cited 15×
- Downs v. DownsSupreme Court of Vermont· 1988-03-10· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.