State, Child Support Enforcement Division v. Bromley
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FABE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a dispute over child support payments. Keith Bromley argues that he is entitled to a refund from the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) because CSED acted outside its authority in establishing his support obligation. He also contends that in modifying his child support obligation, the superior court should have applied Pennsylvania law instead of Alaska law because his child lives in Pennsylvania. Because Bromley is precluded from contesting whether CSED acted in excess of its subject matter jurisdiction, we…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Doyle v. DoyleAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
- Johnson v. Alaska State Department of Fish & GameAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
- Jackinsky v. JackinskyAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
- Bunn v. HouseAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Alaska Public Interest Research Group v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- Faulkner v. GoldfussAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
- Matanuska Electric Ass'n v. Chugach Electric Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- Harrod v. State, Dept. of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Spott v. SpottAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.