Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ex Parte Acker

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1997No. 96-0932Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*318OWEN, Justice, joined by GONZALEZ and HECHT, Justices,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with most of the Court’s opinion. I cannot agree, however, that the provision of the divorce decree directing Mary Ann Acker to pay $50.00 per month as her share of the cost of insurance is unenforceable by an order of contempt.

The provision at issue says:

MARYANN ACKER is ORDERED AND DECREED to pay $50.00 per month as her cost of insuring the child to SHERMAN LLOYD ACKER beginning on the 1st day of June and $50.00 per month on the 1st day of each and every month thereafter.

The hearing on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Ex Parte CrawfordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1984
  3. Ex parte MaloneCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API