Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 26 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Litmans v. Litmans.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Litmans v. Litmans Anchor | green | “is designed to help the dependent spouse maintain the standard of living enjoyed while living with the independent spouse.” | 11 |
| 2 | Litmans v. Litmans | green | “apl is based on the need of one party to have equal financial resources to pursue a divorce proceeding when, in theory, the other party has major assets which are the financial sinews of domestic warfare.” | 10 |
| 3 | Childress v. Bogosian | green | “apl focuses on the ability of the individual who receives the apl during the course of the litigation to defend her/himself, and the only issue is whether the amount is reasonable for the purpose, which turns on the economic resources available to the spouse.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.