Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Philipp v. Stahl

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided October 3, 2001Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

WECKER, J.A.D.,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I concur in Part IV of the majority’s opinion. However, I disagree with the majority’s interpretation and application of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA or “the Act”), N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.65 to 30.123, which leads my colleagues to conclude that the New Jersey Family Part has jurisdiction over plaintiffs application for an order requiring defendant to contribute to college costs for their oldest child, Julia, and to determine child support for their younger child, Eric. I therefore dissent from Part I of the majority’s opinion…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Newburgh v. ArrigoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  2. State v. ReldanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  3. Coleman v. ColemanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  4. Jurado v. BrashearSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2001
  5. State, Child Support Enforcement Division v. BromleyAlaska Supreme Court · 1999

10 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