Search for: "State v. Born" Results 121 - 140 of 5,552
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Dec 2019, 11:15 am by Joel R. Brandes
The petition acknowledged, however, that (1) Lunday left Brazil long before the children were born (at 19-20 weeks in the pregnancy),(2) the children were born in the United States and had not spent a moment of their lives in Brazil, and (3) were currently with Lunday in the United States where Lunday presumably intended to stay. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 5:16 am by Andrew Delaney
Other states have run into similar fact patterns, and have permitted subsequently born children to sue. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 6:19 am by Ryan Scoville
Recently the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 6:31 am by Linda A. Kerns, Esquire
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously (yes that does happen) denied Social Security survivor benefits to twins, conceived using their deceased father's biological sperm, and born 18 months after his death. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 1:14 am by Asma Alouane
Meanwhile, the non-biological parent could adopt the child (See for a confirmation ECtHR, C and E v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 9:30 am
The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case involving children born through the use of assisted reproductive technology or ART. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 10:28 am by Jane Chong
This week, a federal court in Oregon rebuffed him; the following post summarizes the most recent developments in United States v. [read post]