Posts tagged with: "cohabitate"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 3,085
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2014, 12:30 am
From Inside Higher Ed: The new Alabama State University president’s contract comes with strings attached -- to her love life. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 11:00 am
Here are some potential pitfalls to keep in mind for couples who are thinking of keeping some or all of their assets separate. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 6:03 am
The state’s evidence was simply insufficient to establish cohabitation in this case. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
Debra Cassins Weiss of ABA Journal reports that Gwendolyn Boyd, who is single, will not be allowed to “cohabit with a romantic partner in the university residence so long as she is single,” according to her employment contract. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 11:17 am
When defined by other jurisdictions, “intimate partners” encompasses a wide range of individuals, from spouses or persons who cohabitate or have cohabitated (18 USC § 921[a] [32]); persons who are or were involved in a dating relationship, defined as an association characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement (Neb Rev Stat § 28–323[8]); “persons who reside together” (Kan Stat Ann § 60–3102[b]); persons… [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 1:29 am
From Washington Post: No longer taboo, living together has become a more common arrangement for U.S. couples who become pregnant while dating. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 5:04 am
Wells Legal Treatment of Cohabitation in the United States Cynthia Grant Bowman [read post]
11 Jan 2014, 2:21 pm
Boyd is President and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the President’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 5:30 am
The person was cohabiting with the mother of the child in a relationship of some permanence at the time of the birth of the child or the child is born within 300 days after they ceased to cohabit.5. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 4:41 am
This law eliminates the holdings of two cases New Jersey Supreme Courts that unwisely upheld palimony agreements between two unmarried cohabitants. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 10:45 am
The court struck down as unconstitutional the portion of the legislation that prohibited cohabiting with more than one person, saving the sections affecting “marriage” which could be interpreted narrowly and escape the First Amendment. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 7:24 am
”The troubling thought occurs, however, that this last remaining cohabitant may also be about to depart the island. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 7:08 pm
Differences in fathers’ involvement with their children were also found by the father’s age, marital or cohabiting status, education, and Hispanic origin and race. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
” But the real crux of Kody’s challenge focused on the cohabitation clause—the provision that treats cohabitation with one person while married to another as a form of bigamy. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 11:03 am
Perhaps the spouse who is receiving support no longer needs as much spousal support because he/she has had an increase in income or is cohabitating with a person of the opposite sex. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 2:36 am
Straus of the University of New Hampshire has determined that 10 to 20 percent of married couples experience “situational violence”, and rates are even higher for dating and cohabitating couples. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:35 am
“Cohabits,” in Utah law, means “to live together as husband and wife. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 5:17 am
The statute provided that:A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.Utah Code Ann. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 8:02 am
Buhman [opinion, PDF], holding that the cohabitation prong of the state law is a facial violation of the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment [text]. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 8:02 am
Buhman [opinion, PDF], holding that the cohabitation prong of the state law is a facial violation of the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment [text]. [read post]
