Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 7/12/1988
Rice v. Rice
Citations
- 762 P.2d 925
- 1988 OK 83
- 1988 Okla. LEXIS 89
- 1988 WL 73978
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that an anti-assignment statute protected members’ benefits from creditors, not from inclusion in marital estates for purposes of equitable distribution
- “[P]ension benefits [, including police officers pension,] which have accumulated during marriage may be considered as jointly acquired property subject to equitable division in a divorce.”
- anti-alienation provision is a “spendthrift” provision to protect a pensioner s income from the claims of creditors; as spouse in divorce proceedings is not a creditor, benefits accumulated during marriage are subject to division as jointly acquired property
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Simms, Doolin, Lavender, Opala, Wilson, Kauger, Hargrave, Hodges
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2002-04-09· cited 80×
- Christmas v. ChristmasSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1990-02-27· cited 23×
- McLaughlin v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1999-04-27· cited 21×
- Tubbs v. State, ex rel. Teachers' Retirement SystemSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2002-10-15· cited 19×
- In Re the Marriage of SedbrookCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1992-03-13· cited 16×
- Glidewell v. GlidewellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1993-04-09· cited 12×
- Marriage of Baggs v. BaggsSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2016-11-15· cited 12×
- Randol v. RandolCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1993-03-09· cited 7×
- Board of Trustees of Orlando Police Pension Plan v. LangfordDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-12-20· cited 6×
- Hodge v. HodgeCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2008-09-12· cited 5×
- Snyder v. Tucson Police Public Safety Personnel Retirement System BoardCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-09-27· cited 5×
- Smith v. HenleySupreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2017-10-27· cited 4×
- Strock v. StrockCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1993-11-02· cited 1×
- Snyder v. TUCSON POLICE PUB. SAF. RET. SYS.Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-09-27
- BAGGS v. BAGGSSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2016-11-15
- Ramsey v. City of TulsaCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1999-06-21
- STITT V. DRUMMONDSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 2025-11-12
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court· 1979-01-22· cited 837×
- Carpenter v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1983-01-21· cited 92×
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1983-12-16· cited 92×
- Seventeen Hundred Peoria, Inc. v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1966-08-02· cited 58×
- Meadows v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-12-11· cited 52×
- Udall Ex Rel. State Treasurer v. UdallSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-06-24· cited 51×
- Wood v. Independent School District No. 141Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1983-04-25· cited 42×
- Umber v. UmberSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1979-02-20· cited 33×
- Collida v. CollidaCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1977-02-03· cited 31×
- In Re Marriage of HackettIllinois Supreme Court· 1986-09-17· cited 30×
- Stokes v. StokesSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1987-06-30· cited 26×
- Stansberry v. StansberrySupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1978-05-23· cited 22×
- Stuart v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1974-04-29· cited 17×
- Morgan v. HortonTex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1984-07-24· cited 16×
- Lindner v. LindnerMichigan Court of Appeals· 1984-09-17· cited 11×
- Armstrong v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1969-12-09· cited 8×
- Gates v. AlbinSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1983-04-26· cited 8×
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.