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 13 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 Isralsky v. Isralsky.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Isralsky v. Isralsky Anchor | green | “alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay.” | 6 |
| 2 | Balicki v. Balicki | green | “following divorce, alimony provides a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution.” | 4 |
| 3 | Isralsky v. Isralsky | green | “to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.” | 3 |
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.