Hale v. Hale

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that an anti-modification provision “should be considered by the divorce court as an extraordinary circumstance”
• “an anti-modification provision should be considered by the divorce court as an extraordinary circumstance, imposing a greater evidentiary burden on the payor spouse who seeks to modify a decree than would be encountered where no such agreement exists”
• applying average income from previous years determining spousal support obligations
• applying average income from previous years determining spousal support obligations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ellis v. Ellis
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2008-12-23· cited 15×
• Daniel J. McLeod v. Louise M. Macul
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2016-05-26· cited 10×
• Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2006-11-30· cited 8×
• Roberts v. Roberts
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1997-06-25· cited 7×
• Day v. Day
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1998-07-31· cited 6×
• McAllister v. McAllister
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2011-06-23· cited 6×
• Lyon v. Lyon
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1999-05-17· cited 2×
• James A. Sulikowski v. Sandra L. Sulikowski
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2019-09-10· cited 1×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Smith v. Smith
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1980-09-26· cited 57×
• Williams v. Williams
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1982-04-21· cited 36×
• Mitchell v. Mitchell
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1980-09-03· cited 27×
• Baker v. Baker
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1982-05-04· cited 21×
• Raymond v. Raymond
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1982-07-06· cited 7×