Sullivan v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
A question presented is the' right of the courts to modify decrees for alimony payable by installments, after the lapse of time, where there is no power reserved in the decree to make such modification. In recognition of such necessity, according to the justice of the circumstances and changed conditions of the parties, it has been suggested that such decrees be kept open. Johnson v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 641, 71 So. 415; Rearden v. Rearden, 210 Ala. 129, 97 So. 138; Ortman v. Ortman, 203 Ala. 167, 82 So. 417. In Morgan v. Morgan, 211 Ala. 7, 99 So. 185, the decree had been kept open by specific…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Audubon v. ShufeldtSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Emerson v. EmersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- Herrick v. HerrickIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
- Collins v. . CollinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Coleman v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Hager v. HagerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
- Epps v. EppsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Worthington v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Merchants' Nat. Bank of Mobile v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- DuBoise v. DuBoiseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.