County of San Diego v. Elavsky
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
The primary issue in this cause is whether the February 4, 1977, reduction of support payments in the local divorce case modified, by implication, the existing URESA support order. The resolution of this issue basically involves an interpretation of R. C. 3115.27 and 3115.28.
In interpreting these statutes, it is important to remember that a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is a separate, independent action to enforce support obligations (see, e. g., Skinner v. Fasciano [1956], 75 Ohio Law Abs. 409, 137 N. E. 2d 613; Stubblefield v. Stubblefield [Tex. Civ.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Banton v. MathersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1974
- Campbell v. JenneMontana Supreme Court · 1977
- Whittlesey v. BellahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Stubblefield v. StubblefieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954
- McCoy v. McCoyOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Byard v. BylerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Whiston v. Bio-Lab, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
- People Ex Rel. Oetjen v. OetjenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981
- Rondy v. RondyOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- State, Iowa Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Blakeman v. BlakemanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.