In Re the Marriage of Day
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.
Wife appeals from a dissolution judgment, contending that the trial court erred in its distribution of the parties’ property and in its award of spousal support and attorney fees. We review de novo, ORS 19.125(3), and modify the judgment solely with respect to the property distribution.
The parties began living together in June 1984, and were married in California on May 4, 1985. During the early years of the marriage, both parties held jobs, but husband’s work as an engineer was the primary source of family income. Wife worked at a yarn store purchased by the parties, which proved…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matter of Marriage of PiersonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Matter of Marriage of JenksOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- Matter of Marriage of SticeOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- Matter of Marriage of Olinger and OlingerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- Jacobs v. JacobsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Matter of Marriage of TroffoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
- In re the Marriage of KunzeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- In re the Marriage of Van HornCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
- Matter of Marriage of ProctorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Proctor v. MavisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005