Legal Opinion

Casey v. Casey

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 24, 2002No. 96,697PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKauger, J.

¶ 1 The primary issue presented is whether the defendant/appellant, Tammy Casey (mother/custodial parent), agreed by all parties to have demonstrated a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, must forfeit the right to travel on threat of the loss of her children. Secondarily, we are asked to determine whether a judicial balancing of the equities supports an award of appeal-related attorney fees. Pursuant to binding precedent 1 — Kaiser v. Kaiser, 2001 OK 30, ¶ 33, 23 P.3d 278 and Abbott v. Abbott, 2001 OK 31, ¶ 8, 25 P.3d 291, we determine that the record is insufficient to…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Saenz v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. TRW/Reda Pump v. BrewingtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  4. Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
  5. Hamid v. Sew OriginalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. King v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
  2. Stump v. CheekSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
  3. Hough v. HoughSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004
  4. Board of County Commissioners v. LowerySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2006
  5. Crutchfield v. Marine Power Engine Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API