Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Weingart v. Kiessenbeck

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1941PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrand, J.

The question presented for decision is whether the original decree, properly construed, requires the defendant to pay for the support of the child until she reaches the age of 21, having in mind the fact that when the decree was entered she was under 18 at which time the statutory age of majority was 18, and the further fact that after the decree, but before she became 18, the age of majority was fixed by statute at 21.

The defendant contends that vested rights in the defendant were created by the original decree and that the holding of the trial court, requiring him to pay after the child…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. McCullough v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. Hodges v. SnyderSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Gelfert v. National City Bank of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Livingston v. . LivingstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Lewis v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Prime v. PrimeOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  2. DeMendoza v. HuffmanOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Monticello v. MonticelloCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1974
  4. Dowling v. DowlingAlaska Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Picker v. VollenhoverOregon Supreme Court · 1955

16 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