Legal Opinion · Dissent

Phy v. Phy

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1925PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

I am unable to concur in the majority opinion herein. I do not question the propriety of modifying a decree awarding alimony where it is for maintenance only, and where the conditions have changed since the adjudication, and the decree is not based upon any consideration of property rights of the wife, as in Brandt v. Brandt, 40 Or. 477, 486 (67 P. 508, 510), but as said by Mr. Justice WOLVERTON, as found on the last-named page:

"And where the allowance proceeds from a consideration of the restitution of property brought to the husband by reason of the marriage, or the partition of property…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Cole v. ColeIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Emerson v. EmersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
  3. Cohen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Pryor v. PryorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  5. Plaster v. PlasterIllinois Supreme Court · 1868

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Phy v. PhyOregon Supreme Court · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API