O'CONNELL v. Christenson

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding for specific factual findings supporting amount of imputed income, suggesting that trial court refer to Alaska Department of Labor statistics
• noting “[a] trial court has a duty to enter findings adequate for rational appellate review” and vacating an income imputation order due to “absence of specific findings”
• “A trial court has a duty to enter findings adequate for rational appellate review when it sets a child support obligation.”
• first citing Berkbigler v. Berkbigler, 921 P.2d 628, 631 (Alaska 1996); then citing Waggoner v. Foster, 904 P.2d 1234, 1235 (Alaska 1995); and then citing Adrian v. Adrian, 838 P.2d 808, 811 (Alaska 1992)
• “The absence of specific findings . . . renders it impossible for this court to determine whether the court was clearly erroneous in its imputation decision. For this reason, we vacate the child support award and remand the question of imputed income.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).