Search for: "IN THE INTEREST OF: A. C., A CHILD"
Results 3941 - 3960
of 4,789
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2010, 9:20 am
In determining how to characterize the property, we relied on the balancing approach found in the policy considerations set forth in Stewart, supra, 87 N.J. at 154-57, and Brown, supra, 111 N.J. at 332-35, resulting in our conclusion that: [c]ommercial and other non-residential entities are more readily able to pass on to their users the added costs associated with sidewalk liability. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 4:56 pm
We had ten very interesting early works in progress to discuss by (in no order) Chris Lund, Verity Winship, Howard Wasserman, Mike Cahill, Bill Araiza, Giovanna Shay, Marc Blitz, myself, Hillel Levin, and Katy Kuh. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 1:15 pm
Trust principal is a resource Example 1: A disabled child is the beneficiary of a special needs trust that was established after 1/1/00 with assets of the child. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 8:07 am
., BER-C-84-09, Koblitz, P.J. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 5:41 pm
C. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 10:57 am
Google antitrust lawsuit, arguing that 47 USC 230(c)(2) doesn’t protect Google. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 9:45 am
After considering two previous High Court decisions, Arnold J held, at [50] that the power to enforce a charging order (i.e. by order for sale) was, in principle, compatible with the Convention and that (at least in cases brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) any obligation on the court was discharged by considering the factors specified in s.15, 1996 Act: (a) the intention of the parties who created the trust; (b) the purpose for which the property is held;… [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 9:45 am
After considering two previous High Court decisions, Arnold J held, at [50] that the power to enforce a charging order (i.e. by order for sale) was, in principle, compatible with the Convention and that (at least in cases brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996) any obligation on the court was discharged by considering the factors specified in s.15, 1996 Act: (a) the intention of the parties who created the trust; (b) the purpose for which the property is held;… [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 8:34 am
§ 825.122(c)(3). . . .OK. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:24 pm
Mr W left with their child. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:24 pm
Mr W left with their child. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 1:50 pm
The paradigm example of this would be a child's wishes or feelings as expressed to their Guardian or parent or drawings or letters written by them to the judge. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 8:30 am
In the interest of providing this experience to as many children as possible, the program had previously offered one camping experience per child. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 5:00 pm
(2) Assault by auto or vessel is a crime of the third degree if the person drives the vehicle while in violation of R.S.39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a) and serious bodily injury results and is a crime of the fourth degree if the person drives the vehicle while in violation of R.S.39:4-50 or section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a) and bodily injury results [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 7:56 am
The statute was amended in 2005 to: [C]larify that a guardian of the person of a ward is required to exercise authority over matters relating to the rights and best interest of a ward’s personal needs only to the extent ordered by the court. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 6:39 am
C., as the court apparently ruled, and her father is more interested in defending her than disciplining her for clearly inappropriate behavior, then can we find some other solution? [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 5:12 am
,” I have read a few studies showing a link between child abuse and domestic abuse. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 1:34 am
Kemp and Dan C. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:57 pm
Carl is an omitted child, and his interest affects every disposition under the will. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 4:55 am
Asked to impose a prior notice obligation in an order imposing reporting restrictions in the context of child care proceedings, Munby J considered that this would be “fundamentally objectionable”, “wrong in principle”, and “a wholly unacceptable attempt at censorship” (Kent CC v B (A Child) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), at [145]). [read post]
