Search for: "Husband (S) v. Wife (S)"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 6,209
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2012, 10:39 am
In Michelena v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 3:18 pm
Johnson v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 6:14 am
See Crosby v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 10:39 am
The bankruptcy court judge recognized that the state divorce decree awarding an interest in the husband’s 401(k) plan created the wife’s interest in the plan and limited the husband’s interest in the whole plan, citing Trustees of the Directors Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 7:37 am
The husband claimed that the third agreement should be upheld, which would have meant giving the wife £1.89m. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 9:46 am
The plaintiff in the case of McFadden v. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 4:00 am
In Alulddin v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 6:18 pm
Riddle, whose decision in the case of Marchant v. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 11:12 pm
It affirmed a deportation order requiring removal from the U.S. of a Catholic husband and wife from the Philippines, rejecting their claims of religious discrimination. [read post]
15 May 2014, 12:59 pm
Smith v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:02 pm
The Fourth District also found no error in the trial court's belief that the Husband's accountant was the more credible, evidently largely because of the Husband's testimony, found credible, that no interspousal gift was intended when a business account was titled jointly, and the Wife's apparent unwillingness to accept certain assets at the values put forward by her own expert accountant. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 6:52 am
In the case of Scarbrough v. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 8:07 am
Health & S C §7100(a)(1). [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 9:25 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] Miller v. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 9:01 pm
Quinn’s July 15, 2011 order as directed the husband to pay both 100% of certain carrying charges on the marital residence and temporary maintenance to the wife. [read post]
19 Sep 2015, 6:57 pm
The Court considered KH’s legal obligations to his wife, followed by his moral obligations. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm
In its June, 2018 decision in Finkelstein v. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 8:29 am
Justice Mandhane’s decision explains that the creation of a new tort of family violence must be recognized because to cast the Wife’s claims under the intentional torts of battery or assault would be too narrow, and the unique qualities of family violence are not adequately captured under existing torts. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 8:29 am
Justice Mandhane’s decision explains that the creation of a new tort of family violence must be recognized because to cast the Wife’s claims under the intentional torts of battery or assault would be too narrow, and the unique qualities of family violence are not adequately captured under existing torts. [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 8:29 am
Justice Mandhane’s decision explains that the creation of a new tort of family violence must be recognized because to cast the Wife’s claims under the intentional torts of battery or assault would be too narrow, and the unique qualities of family violence are not adequately captured under existing torts. [read post]
