Search for: "IN THE INTEREST OF D. B., A CHILD"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 2,182
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2014, 6:07 pm
As provided for by EPTL 3-3.5(b)(3)(D), the preliminary examination under SCPA 1404 of the attesting witnesses, the person who drafted the will, the nominated executors and the proponents in a probate proceeding will not result in the forfeiture of any benefit under the will. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 6:08 pm
EPTL 3-3.5(b)(3)(D) provides that the preliminary examination under SCPA 1404 of the attesting witnesses, the person who drafted the will, the nominated executors and the proponents in a probate proceeding will not result in the forfeiture of any benefit under the will. [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 10:53 am
Carol testified that she never objected that she was receiving less than the court-ordered amount of child support. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 8:25 am
Thus, for example, we may ask [a] whether the rule has proved to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability; [b] whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation; [c] whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine; or [d] whether facts have so changed or come to be seen so… [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]
26 Apr 2023, 6:30 am
Respectfully discuss difficult issues; come to see another’s point of view; imagine possibilities beyond our own short-term self-interest. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 7:53 am
Petitioner then commenced a proceeding seeking registration and enforcement of the Texas order ( Domestic Relations Law 77-d, 77-g). [read post]
15 Feb 2021, 2:01 am
The funny version of that is, I am the older middle child of four boys. [read post]
15 May 2018, 8:44 am
That purpose aligns completely with the exception carved out in Rule 412(b)(2)”. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 7:22 am
See related Blog Post, published in the Law Office of Donald D. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 4:48 pm
(d) Damage to the party’s reputation: it is very well established that reputation is an aspect of the right to respect for private life. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 2:59 pm
Again, this is familiar territory, which I leave to others. b. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 11:34 am
Similarly, exacerbates tension on First Amendment interests b/c we have a merchandising claim at work—Court’s intuition that he should win does real damage to Rogersby finding the use artistically relevant, but also finding that b/c we’re in the same (merchandising) market, it might be explicitly misleading even though the defendant isn’t doing anything explicitly misleading.Porous markets: Excelled Sheepskin v. [read post]
6 Dec 2019, 4:44 am
It’s about the joy in a child’s eyes on Christmas morning. [read post]
21 May 2012, 7:19 am
§ 615 (f)(3)(B). see, 34 CFR §300.511(d); 71 Fed. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 4:02 pm
§ 615 (f)(3)(B). see, 34 CFR §300.511(d); 71 Fed. [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 4:44 am
In their petition, plaintiffs allege that these revenge websites `engage[d] in the publication of obscenity and child pornography’ in violation of Texas Penal Code. [read post]
6 Jul 2024, 1:16 pm
§ 626(d)(1)) Intellectual property: Patent infringement: 6 years (35 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Jul 2024, 1:16 pm
§ 626(d)(1)) Intellectual property: Patent infringement: 6 years (35 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Jul 2024, 1:16 pm
§ 626(d)(1)) Intellectual property: Patent infringement: 6 years (35 U.S.C. [read post]
