Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Manzi, 276 U.S. 463 (1928), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that in order to receive the full benefits of citizenship, the widow of an alien who passed away after declaring his intent to become a citizen, but before being naturalized, must file her petition within the time frame set by law, at the time being 7 years after the declaration of intent was filed.
Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889), is an important New York state civil court case, in which the Court of Appeals of New York issued an 1889 opinion. Riggs was an example of the judiciary using the "social purpose" rule of statutory construction, the process of interpreting and applying legislation.
For example, the court may classify the cause as "succession", but it notes that the plaintiff brings the claim for relief as the deceased's widow. Before the court can adjudicate on the main issue, it must first decide whether the plaintiff actually has the status claimed, i.e. the incidental question would be the validity of the claimed ...
Case in point: Cannon & Dunphy, one of the city's best known personal injury law firms, is in a bare-knuckle court fight with the estate of founding partner William M. Cannon.
A judge ruled earlier this week that Harbans Kaur should receive 50% of the net value of her late husband’s estate. High Court win for widow left nothing in will ‘opens doors to others’ Skip ...
A $100 million estate left to the "wrong" people can cause court battles over estates that can last years. 24/7 Wall St. has lined up a list of 10 of the most infamous estate battles.
If the widow disputes it, she or the heirs may file an action in court for admeasurment of dower and the court will determine and assign a dower lot to the widow. See Scribner on Dower. [10] A widow's dower and widower's curtesy rights have been abolished by statute in most American states and territories, most recently in Michigan in 2016. [11]
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, [1] which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) [2] constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due ...