Legal Opinion

Keating v. Traynor

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1992No. S-4032PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BURKE, Justice.

In this child support appeal, Maureen Keating, a pro se litigant, challenges the trial court’s modification order. The order, which was prompted by a motion from the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED), provided for less on-going support than the father, Terence Traynor, had earlier agreed to pay. 1 Keating argues that the trial court should have classified Traynor’s future permanent fund dividends as ongoing support in accordance with the stipulation she and Traynor executed in May 1989. Keating also claims that “[n]o evidence was introduced as to Traynor’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Breck v. UlmerAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Ogard v. OgardAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. I'ANSONAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Bergstrom v. LindbackAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Cox v. CoxAlaska Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bird v. StarkeyAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Coffland v. CofflandAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  3. J.H. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Mundt v. Northwest Explorations, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division v. AllsopAlaska Supreme Court · 1995

5 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