Legal Opinion

In re the Marriage of Bidwell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 31, 2001No. 9611-72413; CA A100737PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

Husband has petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion in Bidwell and Bidwell, 170 Or App 239, 12 P3d 76 (2000). He reasons that we have departed from the principle that the “sale of a non-divisible marital asset and division of the proceeds is the remedy of choice to be applied in the absence of practical obstacles.” We allow the petition for reconsideration and adhere to our opinion.

The Oregon courts have sought to articulate principles that guide the division of property in dissolution cases. See Haguewood and Haguewood, 292 Or 197, 207-08, 638 P2d 1135 (1981). The cases, however, do…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of HaguewoodOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. In re the Marriage of SlausonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  3. Matter of Marriage of Olinger and OlingerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  4. In re the Marriage of BidwellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In re the Marriage of GardnerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  2. In re the Marriage of PottsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. In Re the Marriage of BidwellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  4. In re the Marriage of KunzeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  5. In re the Marriage of GibbonsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004

7 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