Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Helvering Vs. Fitch

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 29, 1940

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

38 entries 1 linked 37 unlinked
Show
  1. Douglas Vs. Willcuts US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1935
  2. U.S. 149 (1940) U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v. Fitch
    Search
  3. U.S. 149 (1940) Helvering v. Fitch
    Search
  4. paid in discharge of the general obligation of the husband to support, which is made specific by the decree. Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  5. U.S. 535, because of the asserted failure of that court correctly to apply the principle involved in Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  6. in a lump sum or a property settlement is ratified by the decree, the court retains no power to modify. Spain v. Spain
    Search
  7. Iowa, 249, 158 N.W. 529, and McCoy v. McCoy
    Search
  8. are not in point, since those divorce decrees, unlike the instant one, made no provision for alimony. In Spain v. Spain
    Search
  9. Likewise, Barish v. Barish
    Search
  10. To be sure, there is the following strong statement in Kraft v. Kraft
    Search
  11. And in Carr v. Carr
    Search
  12. have a guardian of the property appointed. However that may be, much of the weight which respondent accords Kraft v. Kraft
    Search
  13. and Carr v. Carr
    Search
  14. supra, seems to have been dissipated by McNary v. McNary
    Search
  15. court to modify alimony awarded in a lump sum or a property settlement ratified by a divorce decree. To be sure, Kraft v. Kraft
    Search
  16. largely, on the lack of power to do so, but on other circumstances. Furthermore, the uncertainty created by McNary v. McNary
    Search
  17. Page 309 U. S. 156 of income out of this kind of alimony trust, on the other. Even on the authority of Kraft v. Kraft
    Search
  18. the husband was directed to make specified payments to the divorced wife. And we see no reason why the rule of Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  19. has not sustained the burden of establishing that his case falls outside the general rule expressed in Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search
  20. See Corl v. Corl
    Search
  21. Junger v. Junger
    Search
  22. Boquette v. Boquette
    Search
  23. Toney v. Toney
    Search
  24. Morrison v. Morrison
    Search
  25. Spain v. Spain
    Search
  26. McCoy v. McCoy
    Search
  27. Handsaker v. Handsaker
    Search
  28. Duvall v. Duvall
    Search
  29. Doekson v. Doekson
    Search
  30. Cf. Shaw v. Shaw
    Search
  31. U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v. Fitch
    Search
  32. and McCoy v. McCoy
    Search
  33. In Spain v. Spain
    Search
  34. Kraft v. Kraft
    Search
  35. Carr v. Carr
    Search
  36. McNary v. McNary
    Search
  37. of Kraft v. Kraft
    Search
  38. of Douglas v. Willcuts
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial