White v. Winston
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentTom Glaze, Justice
This court’s decision frustrates the purpose and operation of Arkansas’ Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act (RURESA). RURESA’s chief purpose (and that of like Acts adopted in every state) is to accomplish an even-handed enforcement of support duties in all states. See H. Clark, Jr., Law of Domestic Relations § 6.6 (1968). The result reached here only serves, as Professor Clark puts it, to exhibit the vice of “hometowning” — the refusal to enforce the legitimate claims to support of a person from another state in order to protect the local domiciliary.
Here, under RURESA…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Oetjen v. OetjenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981
- Hargis v. HargisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
- Horch v. PonikCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1986