Legal Opinion
Sommer v. Sommer
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided October 20, 1997No. 87159PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUMMERS, Vice Chief Justice.
¶1 Our state constitution provides that “Imprisonment for debt is prohibited, except for the non-payment of fines and penalties imposed for the violation of law.” Okla. Const.Art. 2 § 13. The question before us is whether that provision is violated when past due court-ordered alimony payments are reduced to judgment, and that judgment is enforced by a contempt proceeding which could result in imprisonment. We conclude that a contempt proceeding to satisfy an award of support alimony is constitutionally permissible even though the payments have been reduced to…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Bradley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- State Ex Rel. Stanhope v. PrattSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
- Pettit v. PettitIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Ensley v. EnsleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Ostrander v. OstranderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tubbs v. State, ex rel. Teachers' Retirement SystemSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
- Stepp v. SteppSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
- LAY v. ELLISSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018
- City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
- City of Enid v. Public Employees Relations BoardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.