Legal Opinion · Dissent

Perry v. Perry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 4, 1976No. 47205Published

1DissentDoolin, Justice

Despite the obvious intent of the Legislature in enacting 12 O.S.1971 § 1289(b) to make it mandatory for every divorce decree to provide that support alimony shall terminate upon the marriage of recipient unless extenuating circumstances are timely shown, the Court today permits a judge to circumvent the statute and enter a judgment in complete contravention of the law of the State of Oklahoma. In so doing the Court attempts to persuade us the law of waiver justifies relegating this portion of the statute into oblivion. The attempt is wholly unconvincing. I therefore dissent.

Pielsticker v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'NeilSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Veterans Cleaning Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
  3. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. MossSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
  4. Heim v. American Alliance Insurance Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
  5. Spruell v. BlytheCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957

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