Citation network
Barber Vs. Barber
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 04, 1944
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 77 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Barber v. BarberSearch
-
U.S. 77 (1944) Barber v. BarberSearch
-
and that the opinions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina upon these appeals, Barber v. BarberSearch
-
Tenn. 353, 175 S.W.2d 324. We granted certiorari because of an asserted conflict with Sistare v. SistareSearch
-
In Sistare v. SistareSearch
-
even though the decree might be modified prospectively by future orders of the court. See also Barber v. BarberSearch
-
due installments were subject retroactively to modification or recall by the court after their accrual. See also Lynde v. LyndeSearch
-
decrees for future alimony is also applicable to judgments subsequently entered for arrears of alimony. Compare Lynde v. LyndeSearch
-
and one for future alimony some of the installments of which had accrued. Page 323 U. S. 81 See also Audubon v. ShufeldtSearch
-
it but is not yet so modified, is entitled to full faith and credit until such time as it is modified. Cf. Levine v. LevineSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Hunt v. MonroeSearch
-
Utah 428, 440, 91 P. 269, and compare Milwaukee County v. WhiteSearch
-
upon a federal right, and the sufficiency of the grounds of denial is for this Court to decide. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. HuntSearch
-
the duty of this Court, upon an independent investigation, to determine for itself the law of North Carolina. See Adam v. SaengerSearch
-
the North Carolina law on this subject must be in the Page 323 U. S. 82 light of the admonition of Sistare v. SistareSearch
-
to modify its previous order for the allowance of subsistence. Page 323 U. S. 84 Consistently with Sistare v. SistareSearch
-
North Carolina court was but following its own pronouncement in the first appeal in the separation proceeding, Barber v. BarberSearch
-
supra, 216 N.C. 232, 234, and in numerous other decisions of that court. See Crews v. CrewsSearch
-
Anderson v. AndersonSearch
-
Tiedemann v. TiedemannSearch
-
Wright v. WrightSearch
-
allowances of alimony as inapplicable to allowances which have become due and owing. Since its decision in Barber v. BarberSearch
-
in 217th N.C., it has held in Lockman v. LockmanSearch
-
the amount due and enter decree accordingly. It has no less dignity than any other contractual obligation. Barber v. BarberSearch
-
N.C. 422, 8 S.E.2d 204. In Duss v. DussSearch
-
facie evidence of the jurisdiction of the court to render it and of the right which it purports to adjudicate. Adam v. SaengerSearch
-
The language quoted from Barber v. BarberSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Barber v. BarberSearch
-
Compare Lynde v. LyndeSearch
-
Cf. Levine v. LevineSearch
-
Milwaukee County v. WhiteSearch
-
of North Carolina. See Adam v. SaengerSearch
-
of Sistare v. SistareSearch
-
See Crews v. CrewsSearch
-
Lockman v. LockmanSearch
-
In Duss v. DussSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial