Johnson v. Johnson

by
A party cannot rely on the other party's request for an oral argument to guarantee himself or herself an oral argument. Matthew Johnson appealed a district court's order awarding two of the three tax exemptions for the children to Tina Johnson. Matthew argued the district court erred by not holding an oral argument and failing to make explicit findings on who would benefit the most from having the tax exemptions. Matthew did not request an oral argument; rather, he asserted he could rely upon Tina’s request to guarantee himself an oral argument. The Supreme Court concluded the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous; therefore, it affirmed. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law