Notes of Decisions
Rowland v. Kingman, 629 A.2d 613 (Me. 1993).
· cites it 12× “721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”
Rodrigue v. Brewer, 667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995).
· cites it 13× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”
Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150 (Me. 1997).
· cites it 8× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (P.L.1989, ch. 156, § 7 (effective Sept.”
Villa v. Smith, 534 A.2d 1310 (Me. 1987).
· cites it 6× “t Court abused its discretion in denying the father's request for appointment of an independent expert witness and in also refusing the father's request to change his visitation schedule to facilitate weekday consultation between the children and a child psychologist to be hired…”
Harmon v. Emerson, 425 A.2d 978 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 2× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752 provides in part that: The court making an order of nullity or of divorce may make an order concerning the care, custody and support of the minor children of the parties.”
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 507 A.2d 596 (Me. 1986).
· cites it 3× “In other words, he contends that both constitutions mandate a preference for joint custody, or “shared parental rights and responsibilities” as it is called in 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1985-1986), and that a joint custody arrangement may constitutionally be rejected in favor of…”
Miller v. Miller, 677 A.2d 64 (Me. 1996).
· cites it 4× “See 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1995). This standard protects children who lack the ability because of youth, inexperience, and immaturity to protect themselves.”
Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85 (Me. 1999).
· cites it 5× “2 In each case, the court appointed her to investigate the facts bearing on the dispute and to issue a written report to the court summarizing her investigation and recommending what resolution of the dispute would be in the “best interest of the child” pursuant to 19 M.R.S.A. §…”
Osier v. Osier, 410 A.2d 1027 (Me. 1980).
· cites it 2× “In carrying out that two-stage analysis, the trial court should make, on the basis of record evidence, specific findings of fact concerning its evaluation of all relevant considerations bearing upon its ultimate custody order.”
In Re Krystal S., 584 A.2d 672 (Me. 1991).
· cites it 3× “1990), the parents are separating or divorcing, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1990), or parental rights are terminated or suspended, 18-A M.”
Knight v. Knight, 680 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1996).
· cites it 3× “19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp.1995). That standard requires the court to consider the following factors: A.”
Cloutier v. Lear, 1997 ME 35 (Me. 1997).
· cites it 3× “al standard by determining that a change in circumstances had occurred; (2) the trial court erred by finding the change in circumstances was sufficiently substantial in its effect on the best interests of the children to justify a modification of the primary residence of the…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(10) — 1 case
Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (P.L.1989, ch. 156, § 7 (effective Sept.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(11) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(12) — 11 cases
Rowland v. Kingman, 629 A.2d 613 (Me. 1993).
“721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”
Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150 (Me. 1997).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (P.L.1989, ch. 156, § 7 (effective Sept.”
Rodrigue v. Brewer, 667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(2)(C) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(2)(D) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(3) — 2 cases
Rodrigue v. Brewer, 667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(4) — 3 cases
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5) — 20 cases
Villa v. Smith, 534 A.2d 1310 (Me. 1987).
“t Court abused its discretion in denying the father's request for appointment of an independent expert witness and in also refusing the father's request to change his visitation schedule to facilitate weekday consultation between the children and a child psychologist to be hired…”
Rowland v. Kingman, 629 A.2d 613 (Me. 1993).
“721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”
Cloutier v. Lear, 1997 ME 35 (Me. 1997).
“al standard by determining that a change in circumstances had occurred; (2) the trial court erred by finding the change in circumstances was sufficiently substantial in its effect on the best interests of the children to justify a modification of the primary residence of the…”
Rodrigue v. Brewer, 667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5)(A) — 1 case
Knight v. Knight, 680 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1996).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp.1995). That standard requires the court to consider the following factors: A.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5)(D) — 1 case
Rowland v. Kingman, 629 A.2d 613 (Me. 1993).
“721, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752(12), amended by P.L.1987, ch.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(5)(L) — 1 case
Knight v. Knight, 680 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1996).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752(5) (Supp.1995). That standard requires the court to consider the following factors: A.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(6) — 4 cases
Rodrigue v. Brewer, 667 A.2d 605 (Me. 1995).
“19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (1981 & Supp.1994). [2] Although we have said repeatedly that the "delicate balancing" of the factors set forth in 19 M.”
In Re Krystal S., 584 A.2d 672 (Me. 1991).
“1990), the parents are separating or divorcing, 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1990), or parental rights are terminated or suspended, 18-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 752(7) — 2 cases
Jacobs v. Jacobs, 507 A.2d 596 (Me. 1986).
“In other words, he contends that both constitutions mandate a preference for joint custody, or “shared parental rights and responsibilities” as it is called in 19 M.R.S.A. § 752 (Supp.1985-1986), and that a joint custody arrangement may constitutionally be rejected in favor of…”
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.