Fiddelman v. Redmon

How courts have described this case

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

• no limitation requiring courts to adopt only those specific custodial orders sought by parties because \the court has an independent duty to determine an arrangement that meets the best interests of the child\
• “[t]he court . . . retains continuing jurisdiction to modify final orders for the periodic payment of alimony or support, and the care, custody and visitation of minor children, subject to proof of certain conditions as provided in General Statutes [§ 46b-86]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lynch v. Lynch
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2012-04-24· cited 14×
• Fiddelman v. Redmon
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2000-08-22· cited 9×
• Monette v. Monette
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2007-06-26· cited 6×
• Callahan v. Callahan
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2015-05-05

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Krasnow v. Krasnow
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1953-08-04· cited 92×
• Blake v. Blake
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-06-20· cited 91×
• Bunche v. Bunche
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-04-15· cited 87×
• Viglione v. Viglione
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1976-06-15· cited 62×
• Jaser v. Jaser
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1995-03-14· cited 54×
• Passamano v. Passamano
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-12-07· cited 41×
• Fiddelman v. Redmon
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1993-05-04· cited 33×
• Burke v. Burke
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1950-07-03· cited 23×
• Strohmeyer v. Strohmeyer
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-03-17· cited 16×
• Kenny v. Kenny
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-07-06· cited 11×
• G. S. v. T. S.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1990-11-09· cited 10×