Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, struck down a Washington law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.
Kowaliw is a useful guideline for dealing with cases involving lost assets or income. In cases involving waste there must be a proper reason for adopting a non Kowaliw approach. If the losses occurred in the course of the pursuit of the objectives of the marriage then such losses should be shared by the parties although not necessarily equally.
Murdoch v Murdoch, [1] also known as the Murdoch Case, was a controversial family law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court denied an abused ranch wife any interest in the family ranch. [2] This case is most notable for the public outcry it created at the time and for what many [who?] believe is Justice Laskin's most famous ...
Hermesmann v. Seyer (State of Kansas ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)) [1] was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States, case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.
The cases discussed are, The Roos case (1670): Rebecca Probert, Associate Professor, University of Warwick. J v C and Another [1970] AC 668L: Nigel Lowe, Professor of Law, Cardiff University. Corbett v Corbett (Orse. Ashley)[1971] P 83: Stephen Gilmore, Senior Lecturer in Law, King's College London. Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317.: John Mee ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web. AOL.
The CPCs asserted that the law's requirements constituted compelled speech in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. [9] Among these was a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA ...