Search for: "In RE MARRIAGE OF HARMS v. Harms"
Results 341 - 360
of 425
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2011, 5:16 am
Are we hitting someone because it looks like we’re hitting someone? [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 7:02 am
Others agree with developed nations, because there are global health crises that need addressing (and, though Hughes didn’t make it explicit, the idea is that the incentive to research them would be harmed if the resulting patents were at risk). [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 11:11 pm
The Wards had prepared the MoA pursuant to a previous marriage contract, but Ms. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 9:17 am
Jacobson v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 6:46 pm
If the Justice Department does not challenge such decisions as Pedersen et al. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 7:53 pm
Findings that a person presents no risk of harm cannot be, and are not, made lightly. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 3:34 pm
In late 2005, in anticipation of an application by mom to move with the children to Massachusetts, dad filed a motion seeking a re-determination of custody based on “a substantial change in circumstances. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 8:53 am
Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] UKSC 3 While my NL colleagues are off partying at a secret location for lunch, I’ve managed to steal a few precious minutes from an appallingly tight deadline (Sinead: if you’re reading this, it’ll be there, honest) to write a paean of praise in honour of Baroness Hale’s judgment in this case. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm
In re Fidler ,(Bkrtcy.D.Nev.) [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 3:57 pm
The dissenting justices also added that it appeared from the emails that Dokka "independently" chose to leave the marriage [i.e., we're not that excited about the merits of the case]. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 11:56 am
Sometimes people think that the only way they can exercise their freedom — say, to define marriage — is to prevent others from exercising their freedom to define marriage in a different way. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 10:23 am
Jurisdiction. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall-Explanation -The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for decree of a nullity marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of… [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 5:47 am
Oral argument in Perry v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 6:53 am
See IMS Health Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 2:11 pm
Are you trying to say you'd have joined Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 10:39 am
Moher, Esquire As long as marriage has existed, so too has adultery. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 9:52 am
State v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 6:54 am
Moher, Esquire As long as marriage has existed, so too has adultery. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm
In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage certificates. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 1:11 pm
I will not join the fray here on that question (although it seems hard for Prop 8 proponents to argue irreparable harm if the order is not stayed, since Californians have been living with the thousands of civil marriages by same-sex couples, entered into the several month interim between the California Supreme Court’s In re Marriage Cases ruling and voter approval of Prop. 8). [read post]
