Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Newlynn

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 2001No. S-9655PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

I,. INTRODUCTION

Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(h)(2) generally prohibits the retroactive modification of child support arrearages, but subsection (h)(8) authorizes courts to find that an obligee parent is precluded from collecting arrearages that accumulate for a period of nine months or more while the obligor parent is exercising de facto primary custody "of the children." The main question presented here is whether subsection (h)(8) can apply where the obligor parent has de facto primary custody of one, but not all, of the children who are the subject of a support order.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Bennett v. BennettAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Bunn v. HouseAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division, Ex Rel. Valdez v. ValdezAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Eagley v. EagleyAlaska Supreme Court · 1993

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kelly v. JosephAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Paxton v. GavlakAlaska Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Webb v. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division Ex Rel. WebbAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Rosen v. RosenAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Killary v. KillaryAlaska Supreme Court · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API