Sentences with phrase «wife appealed a decision»

The wife appealed the decision, claiming amongst other things that her right to family life (and presumably to remarry) was affected by this decision.

In this case, wife appealed a decision denying her application for interim spousal support.

Not exact matches

Kim says the only issue in the appeals panel decision is that the jury instructions were incorrect, because of the recent Supreme Court decision, which involved former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife.

The appeals court overturned a decision by state Supreme Court Justice Deborah Karalunas, who disqualified both the man's signature and the rest of the signatures on the page his wife signed.

Kim said the only issue in the appeals panel decision is that the jury instructions were incorrect, because of the recent Supreme Court decision, which involved former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife.

The appeals court's decision was based in part on a Supreme Court ruling that ex-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell did not commit a «theft of government services» when he went to bat for a corporate executive who showered him and his wife with gifts.

In another Court of Appeal decision called Catsoudas v. Catsoudas, the appeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to theAppeal decision called Catsoudas v. Catsoudas, the appeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to theappeal court was asked to review the trial judge's order — which was given without any articulated reasons — to the effect that the husband should pay $ 1,000 per month to the wife.

On appeal, the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the trial court judge and denied wife's request of attorney's fees and costs for defending the appeal.

The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal which noted that if the English proceedings had not been stayed, there would be competing litigation in concurrent jurisdictions as the wife had not applied for a stay of the Israeli proceedings (and she was prevented from doing so due to the content of the Consent Order in the Israeli proceedings).

While Newkirk and his wife have appealed Peterson's decision, so has Egilman.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the original trial decision, and made an order declaring that for the purposes of the Family Law Act, the structured settlement money is to be treated as income paid to the wife, and not as proAppeal allowed the appeal, set aside the original trial decision, and made an order declaring that for the purposes of the Family Law Act, the structured settlement money is to be treated as income paid to the wife, and not as proappeal, set aside the original trial decision, and made an order declaring that for the purposes of the Family Law Act, the structured settlement money is to be treated as income paid to the wife, and not as property.

While the wife was initially successful before a circuit judge, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision.

According to Pidgeon, journalists were permitted to send text messages and tweets using their cell phones and iPads in the courtroom last spring during the murder trial in Quebec City of former appea court judge Jacques Delisle, who was convicted of the premeditated murder of his wife (a decision now under appeal).

The following day, the wife sent a note to the judge requesting permission to appeal against the refusal to annul the bankruptcy order, or to hold a further hearing to reconsider that decision.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court (Phillips, Rodger, Hale, Collins & Kerr LLJ) reversed the decision in the Court of Appeal, finding that the English connections in this case were «substantial, if not overwhelming», and that there was a «very large disparity between what the husband received and what the wife received such as to create real hardship and a serious injustice».

In the Appeal decision of Shigehiro v Shigehiro, 2017 ABCA 392, a husband appealed the failure of the trial judge to find his ex wife could earn more as a waitress and server although the Trial Judge found her efforts to get work feeble.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial decision and awarded spousal support to the wife despite her having received $ 4 million in assets.

In its R v. S.B. decision, the Supreme Court stated only that it agreed with all of the reasons provided by Justice Green of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in granting an appeal of the acquittal of a husband accused of sexually assaulting hisAppeal in granting an appeal of the acquittal of a husband accused of sexually assaulting hisappeal of the acquittal of a husband accused of sexually assaulting his wife.

W2000 -03067-COA-R3-CV (Tennessee Court of Appeals, February 5, 2002): The husband appealed the property division, denial of rehabilitative alimony, award of attorney's fees to wife, and decision not to hear evidence on child custody.

In Blackett v. Blackett (1989), 40 B.C.L.R. (2d) 99 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision that the husband should pay compensation to the wife using the date of separation to value shares in a company found to be a family asset.

In another earlier decision, the court granted a wife leave to appeal the severance of her divorce as she would be disentitled to spousal benefits, noting:

The appeal decision in Martin was to award the claimant a life interest in her deceased partner's share of their property, meaning the claimant could remain living there for the rest of her life, after which half the capital value would pass to the estranged wife.

The husband appealed the trial judge's decision to grant sole custody to the wife.

The family court's decision that this jewelry was Wife's separate property is inexplicable in light of this statute and the Court of Appeals found this jewelry to be marital property.

The Court's decision to uphold the wife's appeal in the case means companies wholly owned and controlled by Mr Prest must transfer various properties to Mrs Prest, in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34.

Geraldine Morris, solicitor and head of LexisPSL Family, said: «The Supreme Court's decision to allow the wife's appeal in Petrodel v Prest has come as a surprise to many family lawyers.

Yesterday however, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the wife as Lord Justice McFarlane decided to agree with Mrs Sharp's claims that her husband's original payout decision was «intrinsically unfair» in light of her overwhelming input to the family wealth.

[34] The Court also referred to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Farrar v. Farrar (2003), 63 O.R. (3d), 141 in which the husband claimed spousal support for a period of time during which he was retired and earning pension income of $ 37,000 per year, while his wife was still working and earning $ 74,000 per year.

In this case, the husband wished to appeal a decision that it was he, rather than the wife, who had retained a disappeared sum of # 340,000 in cash.

The wife appealed this modification of custody, arguing that the trial court's decision, premised on the principle that her relocation could in and of itself constitute a material change in circumstances, necessarily infringed upon her constitutional right to travel.

In this recent Court of Appeals case, the court's decision was to take the eight year - old child from Mom, with whom the child had been living since the child was born, and send the child to live with Dad and the new wife in Virginia.