Search for: "Husband (S) v. Wife (S)"
Results 2381 - 2400
of 6,209
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2022, 9:01 pm
” They then “examined the wife and prescribed the best contraceptive device or material for her use. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 6:19 am
This was the situation in Walder v. [read post]
15 May 2008, 2:16 pm
The Eighth Circuit opinion is Cole is a bit opaque in affirming the sentences of a husband and wife convicted federal gun crimes. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 5:51 pm
” In the V.J.F. case, the husband had inherited $2 million which he used to purchase real estate in his wife’s name. [read post]
9 Jul 2017, 7:15 am
In United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 12:15 pm
Johnson v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 11:53 am
Anyways, they still think it's 2007 down there: We agree with the wife that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in awarding the husband a “special equity” in the parties’ jointly owned marital residence. [read post]
2 Aug 2015, 1:57 pm
In the case of Cote v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 12:24 pm
” “Spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 6:02 pm
In this divorce case, Recktenwald’s opinion for the court affirmed the family court’s holding that Wife was equitably estopped from denying Husband was the father of one of her children for purposes of determining custody where the amended birth certificate showed Husband and the father and Wife and Husband treated the child as a daughter of Husband. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 6:59 am
In Osesek, Husband was obligated to pay to the Wife the amount of $5,500 alimony in futuro. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 3:45 am
Taylor v. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 3:45 am
Taylor v. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 3:45 am
Taylor v. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 2:14 pm
Taylor v. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
” Moreover, it was the husband’s burden to prove that the wife in fact wastefully dissipated any marital asset. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 11:20 am
"Likely" means more likely than not, according to the House of Lords in Cream Holdings v Bannerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253, although this ordinary meaning might have to be applied flexibly sometimes.The claimant argued that s. 12(3) did not apply, relying on the carve-out in Article 10(2) which allows freedom of expression to be curtailed to protect the rights of others - here, the claimant's proprietary rights in its confidential information. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 11:20 am
"Likely" means more likely than not, according to the House of Lords in Cream Holdings v Bannerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253, although this ordinary meaning might have to be applied flexibly sometimes.The claimant argued that s. 12(3) did not apply, relying on the carve-out in Article 10(2) which allows freedom of expression to be curtailed to protect the rights of others - here, the claimant's proprietary rights in its confidential information. [read post]
4 Jan 2009, 7:51 pm
In Holterman v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 10:39 am
In Zinter v. [read post]
