Meinholz v. Meinholz
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice.
This is a divorce case. Once again the Court must interpret our statute governing the division of property in divorce cases. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1214 (Supp. 1983). The basic question here is whether we recognize the appellee’s “enhanced business career” as marital property under our present statute.
When the parties married in 1964 appellant, Judith Lynn Meinholz, had a bachelor of science degree and appellee, Ludwig Hugo Meinholz, had recently immigrated to the United States from Germany. While the appellee was not completely fluent in English, he was competent…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Day v. DaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Inman v. InmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1979
- Kikkert v. KikkertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
- Gentry v. GentrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Strang v. StrangSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wilson v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
- Skelton v. SkeltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- Meinholz v. MeinholzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Skelton v. SkeltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- Wilson v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.