Legal Opinion

Olmstead v. Ziegler

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 2002No. S-9481PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FABE, Chief Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to modify child support. Under the trial court's original order, the parties shared custody of their child and neither paid child support to the other. The trial court determined that a modification of child support was not warranted because the father, William Olmstead, was voluntarily underemployed and his earning capacity had not changed. We conclude the trial court did not err in finding that Olmstead was voluntarily underemployed, and we affirm the denial of the motion to modify child support.

IL FACTS…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nass v. SeatonAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Patch v. PatchAlaska Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Pattee v. PatteeAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Robinson v. RobinsonAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
  5. In Re Marriage of RomeMontana Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Koller v. ReftAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Veselsky v. VeselskyAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Tillmon v. TillmonAlaska Supreme Court · 2008
  4. O'CONNELL v. ChristensonAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Ward v. UrlingAlaska Supreme Court · 2007

22 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