Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 N.C. App. 646

280 S.E.2d 182

Rowe v. Rowe

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1981-07-07

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-07-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2008

12 state decisions

80198119902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Judge Vaughn

¶1dissenting.

¶2On defendant’s appeal, I would sustain her assignments of error except the one relating to counsel fees which I too would reject. I would, however, hold plaintiff to his bargain and not allow him to succeed in seeking modification of the order. I do not agree that, on the facts of this case, there is any circumvention of public policy in this position. Indeed, sound public policy would seem to support defendant’s position. Even if the judgment should be held to be modifiable, I would affirm that part of Judge McHugh’s order wherein he declined to do so. The facts of this case do not disclose the kind of change of circumstances that require a reduction in alimony.

/52/ncapp/646 · .json · Public domain