Search for: "Husband, P v. Wife, P"
Results 181 - 200
of 700
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2011, 9:20 am
Moreira v Moreira 2011 NY Slip Op 04014 Decided on May 10, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department The supreme court awarded wife temporary maintenance of only $300 per week and interim counsel fees of only $5,000. [read post]
20 Mar 2016, 9:10 am
In Gomez v. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 11:33 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 May 2009, 10:55 pm
The divorcing wife in Gurevich v. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 9:47 am
Boggs v. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 7:36 pm
” (Art. 57); “The wife is obliged to follow her husband wherever he may establish his residence” (Art. 58); “The husband is the representative of his wife. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 6:55 am
HeydonGrauss v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 7:27 am
The lawyers at James P. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 11:15 am
In S.I. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 10:08 am
On December 8, 2009, the Court of Appeals published its opinion in Helms v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 8:30 am
., and CARMEN VANDRE, husband and wife v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 2:00 am
Thus, as counsel for the wife said, it is not readily apparent what the husband’s real needs are, and in any event, to use the words of Smithers J, “[t]his aspect of the case should be of moderate significance only” and “the outcome of the case should depend largely upon the extensive contributions of the parties over so many years”.Next, in addressing the husband’s submissions that the trial judge failed to adequately take into… [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 1:03 am
The mistake being that of the lawyers and filing only one day out of time is of particular significance (see Jess v Scott and Others (1986) 70 ALR 185 a decision of the Federal Court particularly at p.189 to 191 where the solicitor in that matter was also out of time by one day).Without considering the merits of the appeal any more than is necessary for this application, it can be seen that to deprive the husband of an opportunity to appeal, where the filing was one day… [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 8:57 am
Otani v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 12:27 pm
§414[p][1] [B][i]; 29 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 8:38 am
The plaintiff-ex-wife sought to increase the defendant-ex-husband’s child-support obligations. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 9:00 am
Jacobsen v. [read post]
11 May 2012, 12:51 pm
In Sosebee v. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 7:15 pm
The corporation had been started by a husband and wife, both of whom worked in the business, but the husband was the only record owner. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm
Meerwarth, 71 N.J. 541, 544 (1976) (holding husband required to obtain life insurance for protection of former wife and children). [read post]
