Orr v. Orr
Significance, Questions Never Asked, A Woman's Place Is . . ., A Divorce Decision Changes The Meaning Of Marriage
William Herbert Orr
Lillian M. Orr
That Alabama's alimony statutes were unconstitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
John L. Capell III
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
W. F. Horsley
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist
Date of Decision
5 March 1979
Invalidated Alabama's statutes by which husbands, but not wives, might be required to pay alimony upon divorce.
- Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975).
- Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 1. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
- Goldstein, Leslie Friedman. The Constitutional Rights of Women, rev. ed. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.
- New York Times, March 1979, pp. 6, 7, 11.
- O'Connor, Sandra Day. "Women and the Constitution: A Bicentennial Perspective." in Women, Politics and the Constitution. Naomi B. Lynn, ed. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press, 1990.
- Parham v. J. R. - Significance, Two Tragic Predicaments, The Due Process Argument, Minors And The Constitution
- Oregon v. Rideout - Significance, Does Marriage Mean Consent?, No Help From Friends . . ., Lose One, Win Some
- Orr v. Orr - Significance
- Orr v. Orr - Questions Never Asked
- Orr v. Orr - A Woman's Place Is . . .
- Orr v. Orr - A Divorce Decision Changes The Meaning Of Marriage
- Orr v. Orr - Alimony
- Other Free Encyclopedias