Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation
Deceased Minor Child's Remains
A mother was permitted to disinter her deceased minor child's remains. In re Body of Spiers, No. 2007-CA-00267-SCT (Miss. Aug. 21, 2008).
Compelling reasons supported a mother's petition to disinter her deceased minor child's remains so that the child could be reinterred in Texas, where the child had lived with her mother and stepfather prior to an airplane crash in which the child was killed and the mother was injured. Although the child had spent time with her natural father and grandparents in Mississippi, the child would have been initially buried in Texas had the mother not been hospitalized with severe injuries. Despite her injuries, the mother had adamantly opposed the child's Mississippi burial, and a Texas burial would allow the mother to visit the child's grave more conveniently.
Failure to Satisfy Residency Requirements
Failure to satisfy residency requirements led to dismissal of wife's complaint. Simoni v. Ahkavan, 201856/08, Nassau Cty., Sup.Ct., Oct. 9, 2008.
Defendant husband sought dismissal of plaintiff wife's complaint, arguing she did not satisfy the residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law ' 230, and for the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the custody issues based on the wife's unjustifiable conduct. The husband moved to California in July 2007 for a new job, and the couple purchased a new home in Los Angeles (LA). The wife and children followed the husband in Jan. 2008. Prior to moving to LA, the wife received a license to practice medicine in California, obtained a California driver's license and enrolled the children in the local temple, among other things. In July 2008, the wife left LA with the children, moved back to New York and filed for divorce. The court granted the husband's motion to dismiss finding that the wife, by abruptly leaving LA and moving back to New York with the children without notice to the husband, then filing for divorce, engaged in “unjustifiable conduct.” Also, as neither party lived in New York continuously for a year, the state lacked jurisdiction.
Deceased Minor Child's Remains
A mother was permitted to disinter her deceased minor child's remains. In re Body of Spiers, No. 2007-CA-00267-SCT (Miss. Aug. 21, 2008).
Compelling reasons supported a mother's petition to disinter her deceased minor child's remains so that the child could be reinterred in Texas, where the child had lived with her mother and stepfather prior to an airplane crash in which the child was killed and the mother was injured. Although the child had spent time with her natural father and grandparents in Mississippi, the child would have been initially buried in Texas had the mother not been hospitalized with severe injuries. Despite her injuries, the mother had adamantly opposed the child's Mississippi burial, and a Texas burial would allow the mother to visit the child's grave more conveniently.
Failure to Satisfy Residency Requirements
Failure to satisfy residency requirements led to dismissal of wife's complaint. Simoni v. Ahkavan, 201856/08, Nassau Cty., Sup.Ct., Oct. 9, 2008.
Defendant husband sought dismissal of plaintiff wife's complaint, arguing she did not satisfy the residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law ' 230, and for the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the custody issues based on the wife's unjustifiable conduct. The husband moved to California in July 2007 for a new job, and the couple purchased a new home in Los Angeles (LA). The wife and children followed the husband in Jan. 2008. Prior to moving to LA, the wife received a license to practice medicine in California, obtained a California driver's license and enrolled the children in the local temple, among other things. In July 2008, the wife left LA with the children, moved back to
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.