Search for: "Childs v. State"
Results 8361 - 8380
of 21,043
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2018, 8:18 pm
See Harvey v Harvey, 470 Mich 186, 194 (2004) (stating that “parties cannot stipulate to circumvent the authority of the circuit court in determining the custody of children”). [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 11:05 am
Gluckman v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 5:08 am
State v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 12:06 am
(Haft v. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 5:07 pm
Under the test elaborated in Groves v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 2:07 pm
At least for the state. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 11:43 am
Kalliope R. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:05 pm
As co-blogger Will Baude points out, today the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to strike down a state law banning same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 10:55 am
Today, in Morris v. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 9:22 am
Honig v. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 7:24 am
Levenstein was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, for the failure to pay child support (see 18 USC § 228). [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 9:53 am
State and Crain v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:49 am
’” In examining the issue, the court specifically stated that “[t]he case of Finger v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 8:25 am
Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 203 (2008)); accord State v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:25 pm
After I posted my blog on the May 9, 2018 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in SCDSS v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 7:25 am
In Turner v. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
Ms H appealed to the Court of Appeal.Ms H argued that in reaching its decision on whether she could pay the rent, Hounslow had failed to have regard to its duty under s.11 Children Act.The Court of Appeal found:Following ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, a decision that affected the upbringing of a child had to be made with the well being of the child as a primary concern. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
Ms H appealed to the Court of Appeal.Ms H argued that in reaching its decision on whether she could pay the rent, Hounslow had failed to have regard to its duty under s.11 Children Act.The Court of Appeal found:Following ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, a decision that affected the upbringing of a child had to be made with the well being of the child as a primary concern. [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 9:57 am
Moreover, we note that the Third District Court, in Florida Department of Children & Families v. [read post]
