Legal Opinion · Dissent

Holleyman v. Holleyman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 14, 2003No. 95,584Published

1Dissent

BOUDREAU, J.,

with whom LAVENDER and WINCHESTER, JJ., join, dissenting:

T1 I dissent because there is a major difference between enforcing an agreement between a husband and wife that obligates one or the other to pay child support after a child reaches majority, and enforcing an agreement which attempts to vest the court with jurisdiction to determine a child support obligation after the child reaches majority. Enforcing the latter agreement impermissi-bly allows the parties to confer jurisdiction upon the court to pronounce a particular decision that the Legislature has not currently extended…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Chickasha, Oklahoma v. NathSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  2. Stork v. StorkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
  3. Halliburton Oil Producing Co. v. GrothausSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
  4. State v. PokiniHawaii Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Whitehead v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999

8 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