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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 47 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 Larbig v. Larbig.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Larbig v. Larbig Anchor | green | “whether an alimony obligation should be modified based upon a claim of changed circumstances rests within a family part judge's sound discretion.” | 17 |
| 2 | Lepis v. Lepis | green | “may be revised and altered by the court from time to time as circumstances may require.” | 9 |
| 3 | Larbig v. Larbig | green | “the appellate court must give due recognition to the wide discretion which our law rightly affords to the trial judges who deal with these matters.” | 7 |
| 4 | Gayet v. Gayet | green | “the test for modification of alimony is whether the relationship has reduced the financial needs of the dependent former spouse.” | 5 |
| 5 | Ozolins v. Ozolins | green | “whether one . . . 'subsidizes the other.” | 5 |
| 6 | Innes v. Innes | green | “the basic purpose of alimony is the continuation of the standard of living enjoyed by the parties prior to their separation.” | 4 |
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.