Citation network
Armstrong Vs. Armstrong
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 09, 1956
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
-
U.S. 568 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Armstrong v. ArmstrongSearch
-
U.S. 568 (1956) Armstrong v. ArmstrongSearch
-
Page 350 U. S. 572 a decree as to alimony only, which decree seems clearly authorized by the Ohio cases. Slapp v. SlappSearch
-
Cox v. CoxSearch
-
alimony, rendered by the court in Florida, the matrimonial domicile of the parties, following the decision of Thompson v. ThompsonSearch
-
Pennington v. FourthSearch
-
Compare Burkhart v. CircuitSearch
-
Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 146 Fla. 457, 1 So.2d 872, and Lucian v. SouthernSearch
-
Ohio Savings Bank & Trust Co., 156 Fla. 370, 23 So.2d 674, with Pawley v. PawleySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
So.2d 464, and Sorrells v. SorrellsSearch
-
State, and had not appeared as a party. It has been the constitutional rule in this country at least since Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
that nonresidents cannot be subjected to personal judgments without such service or appearance. We held in Estin v. EstinSearch
-
Kreiger v. KreigerSearch
-
decree in New York, the husband went to Nevada and obtained a divorce. In accord with our previous holding in Williams v. NorthSearch
-
to support after judgment, is the kind of personal right which cannot be adjudicated without personal service. Cf. May v. AndersonSearch
-
U.S. at 317 U. S. 300 . Relying on Milliken v. MeyerSearch
-
was domiciled there, but that was in an uncontested proceeding. This finding was open to challenge in Ohio. Williams v. NorthSearch
-
Ohio courts to require residence accompanied by an intention to make the Ohio a permanent home. See, e.g., Saalfeld v. SaalfeldSearch
-
Florida suit was brought as amply supported by evidence in the record. Consequently the husband's reliance on Milliken v. MeyerSearch
-
is misplaced. There was nothing novel in our holding, in Estin v. EstinSearch
-
a personal money judgment was recognized, and the reasons for the distinction were stated by this Court, in Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
s interests as it is to protect a husband's. It is an essential to this kind of determination. Not long after Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
divorce which was granted without notice, service of process, or a hearing of any kind, judicial or otherwise. Maynard v. HillSearch
-
Thus, the different treatment Estin v. EstinSearch
-
in the judicial and legislative history of our country. It is argued that this case is controlled by Thompson v. ThompsonSearch
-
That case, however, was decided before the Williams cases, the Estin and Kreiger cases, and May v. AndersonSearch
-
It relied, moreover, on the case of Atherton v. AthertonSearch
-
To the extent that the Thompson decision can be considered as in any way inconsistent with Pennoyer v. NeffSearch
-
and Estin v. EstinSearch
-
Williams v. NorthSearch
-
In view of Williams v. NorthSearch
-
S. at 95 U. S. 734 -735. As early as 1832, the distinction received recognition in a state court. Harding v. AldenSearch
-
Beard v. BeardSearch
-
Ellison v. MartinSearch
-
Prosser v. WarnerSearch
-
Bunnell v. BunnellSearch
-
Anderson v. AndersonSearch
-
Dillon v. StarinSearch
-
la Montanya, 112 Cal. 101, 44 P. 345 (1896). See also Barrett v. FailingSearch
-
Turner v. TurnerSearch
-
Hopson v. HopsonSearch
-
Crane v. MeginnisSearch
-
Wright v. Wright'sSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Armstrong v. ArmstrongSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial