Notes of Decisions
Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150 (Me. 1997).
· cites it 4× “19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1). The relevant definitional section requires that support be ordered for children who are below age 19 but still attending secondary school: Twelve through 17 years; between the ages of 12 and 18 years.”
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
· cites it 5× “19 M.R.SA § 316(2) & (3). Although the amount so calculated is presumed to be correct, see 19 M.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
· cites it 5× “See 19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1) (Supp.1993) (making the support obligation dependent on the annual gross income of the parents); see also 19 M.”
Glew v. Glew, 1999 ME 114 (Me. 1999).
“Second, given that the child support guidelines take into consideration the age of the child, each parent’s income, and the parents’ combined incomes, a determination of child support payments based on these factors does not violate public policy by focusing exclusively on the…”
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 597 A.2d 62 (Me. 1991).
· cites it 2× “” The support guidelines provide the formula for computing the parental support obligation, 19 M.R.S.A. § 316, and include a presumption that the primary residential care provider spends his or her share directly on the child.”
Hedrich v. Hedrich, 1998 ME 248 (Me. 1998).
“[¶ 6] Calculation of child support amounts, for purposes of this case, was governed by 19 M.R.S.A. § 316 (Pamph.1996), repealed by P.”
Redmond v. Magoon, 611 A.2d 562 (Me. 1992).
“Both Magoon and Redmond, therefore, were free to address the issue of the tax dependent status of the children at the hearing on Redmond’s motion.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(1) — 3 cases
Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1). The relevant definitional section requires that support be ordered for children who are below age 19 but still attending secondary school: Twelve through 17 years; between the ages of 12 and 18 years.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1) (Supp.1993) (making the support obligation dependent on the annual gross income of the parents); see also 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(2) — 1 case
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.SA § 316(2) & (3). Although the amount so calculated is presumed to be correct, see 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(3) — 3 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1) (Supp.1993) (making the support obligation dependent on the annual gross income of the parents); see also 19 M.”
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 597 A.2d 62 (Me. 1991).
“” The support guidelines provide the formula for computing the parental support obligation, 19 M.R.S.A. § 316, and include a presumption that the primary residential care provider spends his or her share directly on the child.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(4) — 2 cases
Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1). The relevant definitional section requires that support be ordered for children who are below age 19 but still attending secondary school: Twelve through 17 years; between the ages of 12 and 18 years.”
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.SA § 316(2) & (3). Although the amount so calculated is presumed to be correct, see 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(4)(A) — 2 cases
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.SA § 316(2) & (3). Although the amount so calculated is presumed to be correct, see 19 M.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hager, 2000 ME 140 (Me. 2000).
“See 19 M.R.S.A. § 316(1) (Supp.1993) (making the support obligation dependent on the annual gross income of the parents); see also 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(4)(C) — 2 cases
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.SA § 316(2) & (3). Although the amount so calculated is presumed to be correct, see 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 316(7)(F) — 1 case
Fowler v. Fowler, 1997 ME 231 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.SA § 316(2) & (3). Although the amount so calculated is presumed to be correct, see 19 M.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.