Woods v. Woods
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDarrell Hickman, Justice
This is not the first time Arkansas has recognized the concept of divisible divorce. In Rice v. Rice, 213 Ark. 981, 214 S.W.2d 235 (1948), we held that a husband who had obtained an Arkansas divorce upon constructive service and without provision for alimony was not allowed to assert the divorce as a bar to the wife’s action for arrearages arising from a prior New York decree for separate maintenance of which the husband had had notice. The doctrine of divisible divorce was developed in Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948), a case which had very close facts to the Rice case and which we used…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Estin v. EstinSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- McFarlane v. McFarlaneOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Rosenbaum v. RosenbaumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
- Rice v. RiceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.