Legal Opinion

Barraclough v. Barraclough

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1941No. 6275PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

The sole question raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to modify a decree as to the amount of money to be paid appellant in granting her a divorce from respondent.

The record reveals that at the time appellant was seeking a divorce from respondent the parties entered into a written “stipulation” whereby it was agreed that in the event a divorce was granted to the plaintiff, Abbie L. Barra-clough, appellant herein, “the decree shall provide that the defendant pay to the plaintiff, as temporary and permanent alimony, the sum of seventy five dollars each month for…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cole v. ColeIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Herrick v. HerrickIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Smith v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Craig v. CraigIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Openshaw v. OpenshawUtah Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Callister v. CallisterUtah Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Howarth v. HowarthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Pearson v. PearsonUtah Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Jones v. JonesUtah Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Madsen v. MadsenUtah Supreme Court · 1954

6 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