Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
To negotiate a matrimonial case successfully, the practitioner must zigzag through a litany of impediments. These include the facts of the case, the relevant law, as well as the adversary and client, both of whom come with their own personalities, priorities and quirks. This two-part article (Part Two will appear in the April 2008 Issue) is offered as a guide to settling matrimonial cases.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, 26 states have adopted constitutional provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Nineteen states have enacted similar statutory restrictions. Meanwhile, ten states and the District of Columbia have adopted varying levels of legal protection for same-sex couples and their children. While only one American jurisdiction allows same-sex couples to marry, at least five countries worldwide, including Canada, do so. Much is hazy in this legal landscape, but one thing is clear: In the short term, sister-state recognition of these relationships will be spotty at best, and will be fought out on a case-by-case basis.
In this day and age, when family units break apart and realign regularly, when employment is more transient than permanent, when transportation is affordable and global communication is instantaneous, relocating to another city or state, or even another country, is more common than ever. While the reasons for moving seem countless, a primary residential parent's ability to relocate with the children may be severally limited by the laws in his or her state.
In-depth analysis of recent rulings.
Features
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
The so-called 'Atlantic Yards' project in Brooklyn is a typical case of public/private partnership to develop an area that has long been the location of urban blight. The issue, from the standpoint of those who challenged the condemnation of their property for that project is that the property, which is the subject of the recent Second Circuit decision in Goldstein v. Pataki, for the most part is not considered blighted but is close or adjacent to blighted areas.
