Legal Opinion
In Re Marriage of Hillerman
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 19, 1980No. Civ. 16669PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HARELSON, J. *
The sole question on this appeal from an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage is whether the trial court’s refusal to reserve jurisdiction for the purpose of dividing future Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) was proper.
The parties to this action were married February 1, 1959, and separated on July 20, 1976. During that period Alan contributed, or had deducted from his pay, sums deposited to Social Security. At the interlocutory hearing, argument was presented as to whether the trial court should reserve jurisdiction for the purpose of…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Weinberger v. WiesenfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Hisquierdo v. HisquierdoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Richardson v. BelcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- In Re Marriage of ZahmWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- In re the Marriage of ZahmWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Ex Parte BursonTexas Supreme Court · 1981
- Powell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1993
- Mann v. MannAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.