tent="200">
Leagle.com Leagle.com Leagle.com
Sign in
 

IN MATTER OF MARRIAGE OF HORESKY


569 P.2d 34 (1977)

30 Or.App. 941

In the matter of the MARRIAGE OF Frank HORESKY, Jr., Respondent, and H. Marie Horesky, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Decided September 12, 1977.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

J. Rion Bourgeois, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Evans, Anderson, Hall & Grebe, Portland.

Larry D. Moomaw, Beaverton, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Blyth, Porcelli & Moomaw, Beaverton.

Before SCHWAB, C.J., and TANZER and RICHARDSON, JJ.


TANZER, Judge.

This is an appeal by the wife1 from a modification of a dissolution decree. The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1974 after a marriage of 20 years. The dissolution decree awarded custody of a minor daughter to the wife and custody of three minor sons to the husband, who also received the family residence until remarriage or until all sons have reached majority or emancipation. Both parties were employed during the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases

    MARDER v. MASSACHUSETTS | 377 U.S. 407 (1964) | 77us4071732 | Leagle.com
     

    MARDER v. MASSACHUSETTS

    No. 819.

    377 U.S. 407 (1964)

    MARDER v. MASSACHUSETTS.

    Supreme Court of United States.

    Decided June 1, 1964.


    Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

    Appellant pro se.

    Edward W. Brooke, Attorney General of Massachusetts, for appellee.


    PER CURIAM.

    The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

    MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, dissenting.

    This appeal raises the question of whether a person charged with a traffic violation (or presumably any other criminal offense) may be forced by a statute, General Laws of Mass., c. 90, §§ 20 and 20A, to choose between foregoing a trial by pleading guilty...

    Let's get started

    Leagle.com

    Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
    Sign on now to see your case.
    Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

    • Updated daily.
    • Uncompromising quality.
    • Complete, Accurate, Current.

    Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

    Cited Cases

    • No Cases Found

    Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

    Citing Cases