State, Child Support Enforcement Division v. Bromley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Alaska court could modify Maine support order because parents and child no longer resided in Maine, obligee was not resident of Alaska and sought modification here, and obligor was subject to personal jurisdiction of Alaska tribunal
• noting that the shared custody formula modifies the primary custody formula “to reflect these increased shared custody costs”
• noting that commentary to Rule 90.3 is persuasive authority
• \The ... doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) prevents relitigation of an issue already litigated and decided. ...\
• Alaska had jurisdiction to modify Maine child support order where neither party nor child remained in Maine and father had moved his residence to Alaska
• collateral estoppel \aim[s] to prevent parties from again and again attempting to reopen a matter that has been resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction\ (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Engebreth v. Moore, 567 P.2d 305, 307 (Alaska 1977))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).