§48-1-102 Legislative intent; continuation of existing statutory provisions.
§48-1-103 Operative date of enactment; effect on existing law.
§48-1-104 West Virginia code replacement.
§48-1-203 Antenuptial or prenuptial agreement defined.
§48-1-204 Arrearages or past due support defined.
§48-1-206 Automatic data processing and retrieval system defined.
§48-1-207 Basic child support obligation defined.
§48-1-208 Bureau for child support enforcement defined.
§48-1-209 Bureau for child support enforcement attorney defined.
§48-1-210 Caretaker and caretaking functions defined.
§48-1-213 Combined adjusted gross income defined.
§48-1-215 Contingent fee agreement defined.
§48-1-217 Court of competent jurisdiction defined.
§48-1-225 Extraordinary medical expenses defined.
§48-1-226 Family court judge defined.
§48-1-227 Final divorce or final annulment order defined.
§48-1-229 Guardian of the property of a child defined.
§48-1-231 Individual entitled to support enforcement services under the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act defined.
§48-1-240 Source of income defined.
§48-1-241 Split physical custody defined.
§48-1-243 Spousal support in gross defined.
§48-1-246 Unreimbursed health care expenses defined.
§48-1-247 Work-related child care costs defined.
§48-1-305 Suit money, counsel fees and costs.
§48-1-306 Proceeding for release of support lien.
§48-1-307 Collection of child or spousal support by collection agencies.
§48-2-102 Where an application for a marriage license may be made; when an application may be received and a license issued; application by mail.
§48-2-103 Waiting period before issuance of marriage license; issuance of license in case of emergency or extraordinary circumstances.
§48-2-104 Contents of the application for a marriage license.
§48-2-105 Execution of the application for a marriage license.
§48-2-107 Recording an application for a marriage license.
§48-2-202 Endorsement and return of licenses by persons solemnizing marriage; duties of clerk pertaining thereto.
§48-2-204 Record of marriage celebrated outside of state.
§48-2-302 Prohibition against marriage of persons related within certain degrees.
§48-2-303 Prohibition against marriage not to include persons related by adoption.
§48-2-402 Qualifications of religious representative for celebrating marriages; registry of persons authorized to perform marriage ceremonies; special revenue fund.
§48-2-403 Ritual for ceremony of marriage by a religious representative.
§48-2-404 Ritual for ceremony of marriage by a judge or justice.
§48-2-405 Record of marriage to be kept by person officiating.
§48-2-502 Issuing marriage license contrary to law; penalty.
§48-2-504 Failure to endorse and return license; penalties.
§48-2-505 Unlawful solicitation of a celebration of marriage.
§48-2-602 Marriage out of state to evade law.
§48-2-603 Certain acts, records, and proceedings not to be given effect in this state.
§48-2-604 Additional fee to be collected for each marriage license issued.
§48-3-101 Right to sue to annul or affirm marriage.
§48-3-102 Venue of actions for annulment or affirmation.
§48-3-104 Affirmation or annulment of marriage.
§48-3-105 What persons may not institute annulment action.
§48-4-101 Where an action for separate maintenance may be brought.
§48-4-102 Grounds for separate maintenance.
§48-4-103 Award of relief in action for separate maintenance.
§48-4-104 Modification of order awarding separate maintenance.
§48-5-103 Jurisdiction of parties; service of process.
§48-5-104 Retention of jurisdiction when divorce is denied.
§48-5-105 Residency requirements for maintaining an action for divorce.
§48-5-106 Venue of actions for divorce.
§48-5-107 Parties to a divorce action.
§48-5-202 Grounds for divorce; voluntary separation.
§48-5-203 Grounds for divorce; cruel or inhuman treatment.
§48-5-204 Grounds for divorce; adultery.
§48-5-205 Grounds for divorce; conviction of crime.
§48-5-206 Grounds for divorce; permanent and incurable insanity.
§48-5-207 Grounds for divorce; habitual drunkenness or drug addiction.
§48-5-208 Grounds for divorce; desertion.
§48-5-209 Grounds for divorce; abuse or neglect of a child.
§48-5-404 Advance filing of divorce petition in actions alleging abandonment or voluntary separation.
§48-5-503 Temporary parenting order; child support.
§48-5-504 Attorney's fees and court costs.
§48-5-505 Costs of health care and hospitalization.
§48-5-506 Use and occupancy of the marital home.
§48-5-507 Use and possession of motor vehicles.
§48-5-508 Preservation of the properties of the parties.
§48-5-509 Enjoining abuse, emergency protective order.
§48-5-510 Consideration of financial factors in ordering temporary relief.
§48-5-512 Ex parte orders granting temporary relief.
§48-5-513 Granting of ex parte relief.
§48-5-514 Temporary order not subject to appeal or review.
§48-5-602 Court may require payment of spousal support.
§48-5-603 Relief regarding minor child or children.
§48-5-606 Relief regarding costs of health care and hospitalization.
§48-5-607 Court may order transfer of accounts for recurring expenses.
§48-5-608 Injunctive relief or protective orders.
§48-5-609 Court may restore to either party his or her property.
§48-5-610 Court may order just and equitable distribution of property.
§48-5-611 Suit money, counsel fees and costs.
§48-5-612 Court may order a party to deliver separate property.
§48-5-613 Former name of party; restoration.
§48-5-702 Revision of order enjoining abuse.
§48-5-703 Revision of order allocating custodial responsibility and decision-making responsibility.
§48-5-704 Revision of order establishing child support.
§48-5-705 Bureau for child support enforcement may seek revision of order establishing child support.
§48-5-706 Revision of order concerning distribution of marital property.
§48-5-707 Reduction or termination of spousal support because of de facto marriage.
§48-6-202 Agreement for spousal support beyond the death of the payor.
§48-6-203 Agreement for spousal support beyond the remarriage of the payee.
§48-7-102 Division of marital property in accordance with a separation agreement.
§48-7-103 Division of marital property without a valid agreement.
§48-7-104 Determination of worth of marital property.
§48-7-105 Transfers of property to achieve equitable distribution of marital property.
§48-7-106 Findings; rationale for division of property.
§48-7-107 Refusal to transfer property; appointment of special commissioner.
§48-7-108 Interest or title in property prior to judicial determination.
§48-7-109 Tax consequences of transfer of interest or title.
§48-7-110 Requiring sums to be paid out of disposable retired or retainer pay.
§48-7-111 No equitable distribution of property between individuals not married to one another.
§48-7-112 Prospective effect of prior amendments.
§48-7-202 Assets that are required to be disclosed.
§48-7-204 Discovery under rules; optional disclosure of tax returns.
§48-7-205 Confidentiality of disclosed information.
§48-7-206 Failure to disclose required financial information.
§48-7-302 Notice of hearing for injunction; temporary injunction.
§48-7-303 Applicability of injunction procedures to sale of goods or disposition of major business assets.
§48-7-304 Setting aside encumbrance or disposition of property to third persons.
§48-7-402 Notice of lis pendens.
§48-8-101 General provisions regarding spousal support.
§48-8-102 Jurisdiction to award spousal support.
§48-8-103 Payment of spousal support.
§48-8-104 Effect of fault or misconduct on award of spousal support.
§48-8-106 Payments out of disposable retired or retainer pay.
§48-9-102 Objectives; best interests of the child.
§48-9-103 Parties to an action under this article.
§48-9-203 Proposed temporary parenting plan; temporary order; amendment; vacation of order.
§48-9-204 Criteria for temporary parenting plan.
§48-9-206 Allocation of custodial responsibility.
§48-9-207 Allocation of significant decision-making responsibility.
§48-9-208 Criteria for parenting plan; dispute resolution.
§48-9-303 Interview of the child by the court.
§48-9-402 Modification without showing of changed circumstances.
§48-9-404 Modification of a parenting plan due to military service.
§48-9-602 Designation of custody for the purpose of other state and federal statutes.
§48-9-604 Parent education and mediation fund.
§48-10-301 Persons who may apply for grandparent visitation; venue.
§48-10-401 Motion for grandparent visitation when action for divorce, custody, legal separation, annulment or establishment of paternity is pending.
§48-10-402 Petition for grandparent visitation when action for divorce, custody, legal separation, annulment or establishment of paternity is not pending.
§48-10-403 Appointment of guardian ad litem for the child.
§48-10-501 Necessary findings for grant of reasonable visitation to a grandparent.
§48-10-602 Prohibitions on use of child's written or recorded statement or affidavit; child not to be called as a witness.
§48-10-702 Proof required when action is not pending for divorce, custody, legal separation, annulment or establishment of paternity.
§48-10-802 Supervised visitation; conditions on visitation.
§48-10-901 Effect of remarriage of the custodial parent.
§48-10-902 Effect of adoption of the child.
§48-10-1001 Continuing jurisdiction of circuit court or family court.
§48-10-1002 Termination of grandparent visitation.
§48-10-1101 Attorney's fees; reasonable costs.
§48-11-101 General provisions relating to child support.
§48-11-102 Required information in support orders.
§48-11-103 Child support beyond age eighteen.
§48-11-104 Payments out of disposable retired or retainer pay.
§48-11-105 Modification of child support order.
§48-11-106 Expedited process for modification.
§48-11-106a Modification of support order with the assistance of Bureau for Child Support Enforcement.
§48-11-107 Modification resulting in reduction and overpayment of support.
§48-11-108 Modification of support based on military service.
§48-11-203 Proposed temporary parenting plan; temporary order; amendment; vacation of order.
§48-11-204 Criteria for temporary parenting plan.
§48-11-206 Allocation of custodial responsibility.
§48-11-207 Allocation of significant decision-makingresponsibility.
§48-11-208 Criteria for parenting plan; dispute resolution.
§48-11-209 Parenting plan; limiting factors.
§48-11-303 Interview of the child by the court.
§48-11-402 Modification without showing of changed circumstances.
§48-11-403 Relocation of a parent.
§48-11-602 Designation of custody for the purpose of other state and federal statutes.
§48-11-603 Effect of enactment; operative dates.
§48-11-604 Effect of enactment; modification of child visitation privileges in certain cases.
§48-12-101 Definitions applicable to medical support enforcement.
§48-12-103 Cost of medical support considered in applying support guidelines.
§48-12-104 Use of national medical support notice; employer to enroll child and withhold premium.
§48-12-105 Employer's obligation to transfer notice to appropriate plan.
§48-12-106 Notice requirements for certain newly-hired employees.
§48-12-107 Notice requirement upon termination of parent.
§48-12-109 Custodial parent to receive coverage information, documents.
§48-12-110 Employer, union to notify IV-D agency within forty days of receipt of notice.
§48-12-111 Employer's duties upon service of national medical support notice; notice from another state.
§48-12-112 Employer's duties where court-ordered coverage available.
§48-12-113 Signature of custodian of child is valid authorization to insurer; insurer's obligations.
§48-12-114 Notice to be transferred on parent's change of employment.
§48-12-117 Mandatory date for use of the national medical support notice.
§48-12-118 Failure of employer to comply with medical insurance coverage; penalties.
§48-13-102 Right of children to share in parents' level of living.
§48-13-103 Financial contributions of both parents to be considered.
§48-13-203 Amount determined by guidelines presumed to be correct.
§48-13-302 Incomes below the table for determining basic child support obligations.
§48-13-303 Incomes above the table for determining basic child support obligations.
§48-13-402 Division of basic child support obligation in basic shared parenting.
§48-13-403 Worksheet for calculating basic child support obligation in basic shared parenting cases.
§48-13-404 Additional calculation to be made in basic shared parenting cases.
§48-13-502 Extended shared parenting worksheet.
§48-13-503 Split physical custody adjustment.
§48-13-602 Adjustment for child health care.
§48-13-603 Adjustment for obligor's social security benefits sent directly to the child; receipt by child of supplemental security income.
§48-13-802 Investment of child support.
§48-13-803 Reimbursement or arrearage only support.
§48-14-102 Who may bring action for child support order.
§48-14-103 Venue for action for child support order.
§48-14-104 Obligee may seek spousal support in addition to child support.
§48-14-105 Mandatory provision for wage withholding.
§48-14-106 Modification of support order.
§48-14-107 Modification of support order with the assistance of Bureau for Child Support Enforcement.
§48-14-108 Deceased parties in support cases.
§48-14-202 Registration of foreign order.
§48-14-203 Affidavit of accrued support.
§48-14-205 Circuit clerk to provide form affidavits.
§48-14-206 Priority over other legal process.
§48-14-207 Amount to be withheld from income.
§48-14-208 Filing of false affidavit constitutes false swearing.
§48-14-209 Application to support orders of another state.
§48-14-210 Application to income withholding.
§48-14-302 Affidavit of accrued support.
§48-14-303 Registration of foreign order.
§48-14-304 Full faith and credit to liens arising in another state.
§48-14-306 Filing of false affidavit constitutes false swearing.
§48-14-307 Application to support orders of another state.
§48-14-308 Enforcement by the bureau for child support enforcement of lien on real property.
§48-14-403 Exception to requirement for automatic withholding from income.
§48-14-404 Enforcement of withholding by Bureau for Child Support Enforcement.
§48-14-405 Information required in notice to obligor.
§48-14-406 Notice to source of income; withholding in compliance with order.
§48-14-407 Contents of notice to source of income.
§48-14-408 Determination of amounts to be withheld.
§48-14-409 Time for implementing withholding.
§48-14-410 Sending amounts withheld to bureau; notice.
§48-14-411 Time withholding is to stay in effect.
§48-14-412 Notice of termination of employment or receipt of income.
§48-14-414 Sending amounts withheld to division; notice.
§48-14-415 Misdemeanor offense of concealing payment of income to obligor; penalty.
§48-14-416 Request to source of income for information regarding payment of income.
§48-14-417 Priority of support collection over other legal process.
§48-14-418 Misdemeanor offense for source of income's action against an obligor; penalty.
§48-14-502 Willful failure or refusal to comply with order to pay support.
§48-14-503 Limitation on length of commitment.
§48-14-504 Violation of work release conditions.
§48-14-505 Misdemeanor offense of escape from custody; penalty.
§48-14-602 Use of automated administrative enforcement.
§48-14-603 Enforcing support orders through automated administrative enforcement.
§48-14-701 Posting of bonds or giving security to guarantee payment of overdue support.
§48-14-801 When monthly payments may be increased to satisfy overdue support.
§48-14-803 Application to support orders of courts of competent jurisdiction.
§48-15-102 Action against a license defined.
§48-15-202 Persons subject to notice of action against license.
§48-15-203 Exhaustion of other statutory enforcement methods.
§48-15-204 Service of notice of action against a license.
§48-15-206 Notice of consequences of failure to comply.
§48-15-207 Failure to act in response to notice; entry of order.
§48-15-208 Request and petition for hearing.
§48-15-209 Hearing on denial, nonrenewal, suspension or restriction of license.
§48-15-302 Denial, nonrenewal, suspension or restriction continues until further order or issuance of certificate of compliance.
§48-15-303 License applicant to certify information regarding child support obligation.
§48-15-304 Procedure where license to practice law may be subject to denial, suspension or restriction.
§48-15-402 Effect of determination as to authority of federal government to require denials, suspensions or restrictions of licenses.
§48-16-202 Duration of personal jurisdiction.
§48-16-203 Initiating and responding tribunal of state.
§48-16-205 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order.
§48-16-206 Continuing jurisdiction to enforce child support order.
§48-16-207 Determination of controlling child support order.
§48-16-208 Child support orders for two or more obligees.
§48-16-210 Application of article to nonresident subject to personal jurisdiction.
§48-16-211 Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify spousal support order.
§48-16-302 Proceeding by minor parent.
§48-16-303 Application of law of state.
§48-16-304 Duties of initiating tribunal.
§48-16-305 Duties and powers of responding tribunal.
§48-16-307 Duties of support enforcement agency.
§48-16-310 Duties of state information agency.
§48-16-311 Pleadings and accompanying documents.
§48-16-312 Nondisclosure of information in exceptional circumstances.
§48-16-314 Limited immunity of petitioner.
§48-16-316 Special rules of evidence and procedure.
§48-16-319 Receipt and disbursement of payments.
§48-16-502 Employer's compliance with income withholding order of another state.
§48-16-503 Employer's compliance with two or more income withholding orders.
§48-16-504 Immunity from civil liability.
§48-16-507 Administrative enforcement of orders.
§48-16-602 Procedure to register order for enforcement.
§48-16-603 Effect of registration for enforcement.
§48-16-605 Notice of registration of order.
§48-16-606 Procedure to contest validity or enforcement of registered order.
§48-16-607 Contest of registration or enforcement.
§48-16-609 Procedure to register child support order of another state for modification.
§48-16-610 Effect of registration for modification.
§48-16-611 Modification of child support order of another state.
§48-16-612 Recognition of order modified in another state.
§48-16-613 Jurisdiction to modify support order of another state when individual parties reside in this state.
§48-16-614 Notice to issuing tribunal of modification.
§48-16-615 Jurisdiction to modify child support order of foreign country or political subdivision.
§48-17-101 Creation of Support Enforcement Commission; number of members.
§48-17-102 Appointment of members of Support Enforcement Commission; qualifications and eligibility.
§48-17-103 Terms of commission members; conditions of membership.
§48-17-106 Compensation of members; reimbursement for expenses.
§48-17-108 Removal of commission members.
§48-17-109 General duties of support enforcement commission.
§48-18-101 Establishment of the bureau for child support enforcement; cooperation with the division of human services.
§48-18-102 Appointment of commissioner; duties; compensation.
§48-18-104 Supervisory responsibilities within the bureau for child support enforcement.
§48-18-105 General duties and powers of the bureau for child support enforcement.
§48-18-106 Notice to unemployed obligor.
§48-18-111 Establishment of parent locator service.
§48-18-112 Cooperation with other states in the enforcement ofchild support.
§48-18-113 Disbursements of amounts collected as support.
§48-18-115 Payment of support to the bureau for child support enforcement.
§48-18-116 Authorization for data processing and retrieval system.
§48-18-117 Obtaining support from federal tax refunds.
§48-18-118 Obtaining support from state income tax refunds.
§48-18-118a Obtaining refunds of overpaid support from state income tax refunds.
§48-18-119 Obtaining support from unemployment compensation benefits.
§48-18-121 Providing information to consumer reporting agencies; requesting consumer credit reports for child support purposes.
§48-18-122 Central state case registry.
§48-18-124 Liability for financial institutions providing financial records to the bureau for child support enforcement; agreements for data match system; encumbrance or surrender of assets.
§48-18-125 Employment and income reporting.
§48-18-126 Review and adjustment of child support orders.
§48-18-128 Billing for fees and costs.
§48-18-129 Acceptance of federal purposes; compliance with federal requirements and standards.
§48-18-130 Publicizing child support enforcement services.
§48-18-131 Access to records, confidentiality.
§48-18-133 Recording of social security numbers in certain family matters.
§48-18-134 Bureau for Child Support Enforcement continued.
§48-18-201 General Provisions related to requests for assistance, recalculation of support amounts, preparation of petition and proposed orders.
§48-18-202 Request for assistance by party.
§48-18-203 Bureau processing of request for assistance or recalculation.
§48-18-204 Request for meeting with the Bureau.
§48-18-205 Bureau action on request of recalculation and presentation of proposed order.
§48-18-206 Family court action on petition and proposed order prepared by Bureau for Child Support Enforcement.
§48-19-101 Purposes; how article to be construed.
§48-19-102 Appointment of Bureau for Child Support Enforcementattorneys.
§48-19-103 Duties of the bureau for support enforcement attorneys.
§48-19-104 Vacancies; interim bureau for child support enforcement attorney.
§48-20-103 Proceedings governed by other law.
§48-20-104 Application to Indian tribes.
§48-20-105 International application of chapter.
§48-20-106 Effect of child custody determination.
§48-20-108 Notice to persons outside state.
§48-20-109 Appearance and limited immunity.
§48-20-111 Taking testimony in another state.
§48-20-112 Cooperation between courts; preservation of records.
§48-20-203 Jurisdiction to modify determination.
§48-20-205 Notice; opportunity to be heard; joinder.
§48-20-208 Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.
§48-20-209 Information to be submitted to court.
§48-20-210 Appearance of parties and child.
§48-20-302 Enforcement under Hague convention.
§48-20-305 Registration of child custody determination.
§48-20-306 Enforcement of registered determination.
§48-20-308 Expedited enforcement of child custody determination.
§48-20-309 Service of petition and order.
§48-20-311 Warrant to take physical custody of child.
§48-20-312 Costs, fees and expenses.
§48-20-315 Role of prosecutor or public official.
§48-20-316 Role of law enforcement.
§48-22-103 Adoptive parents, adoptive mother or adoptive father defined.
§48-22-302 Timing and execution of consent or relinquishment.
§48-22-303 Content of consent or relinquishment.
§48-22-304 Consent or relinquishment by infants.
§48-22-305 Revocation of consent or relinquishment for adoption.
§48-22-306 Conduct presumptively constituting abandonment.
§48-22-602 How notice is to be served.
§48-22-603 Notice to an unknown father.
§48-22-703 Effect of order as to relations of parents and child and as to rights of inheritance; intestacy of adopted child.
§48-22-704 Finality of order; challenges to order of adoption.
§48-22-802 Contracts limiting or restraining adoptions.
§48-22-803 Prohibition of purchase or sale of child; penalty; definitions; exceptions.
§48-22-902 Filing of petition for recognition of foreign adoption decree.
§48-22-903 Proceedings for recognition of foreign adoption decree.
§48-23-206 Genetic and social history defined.
§48-23-208 Mutual consent voluntary adoption registry or registry defined.
§48-23-402 Age limitations on use of the mutual consent voluntary adoption registry.
§48-23-403 Registration by a birth father.
§48-23-404 Registration by a birth parent who used an alias in terminating parental rights.
§48-23-503 Cases where disclosure of identifying information cannot occur.
§48-23-504 Matching and disclosure procedures.
§48-23-505 Retention of data by the registry.
§48-23-506 Scope of information obtained by the mutual consent voluntary adoption registry.
§48-23-507 Fees for operations of the mutual consent voluntary adoption registry.
§48-24-102 Statute of limitations; prior statute of limitations not a bar to action under this article; effect of prior adjudication between husband and wife.
§48-24-103 Medical testing procedures to aid in the determination of paternity.
§48-24-104 Establishment of paternity and duty of support.
§48-24-106 Establishing paternity by acknowledgment of natural father.
§48-25-101 Petition to circuit court or family court for change of name; contents thereof; notice of application.
§48-25-102 Objections to change of name.
§48-25-103 When court may or may not order change of name.
§48-25-104 Recordation of order changing name.
§48-25-105 When new name to be used.
§48-25-106 Unlawful change of name.
§48-25-107 Unlawful change of name by certain felons and registrants.
§48-25A-2 Maternal Mortality Review Team.
§48-26-206 Family protection program defined.
§48-26-402 Duties regarding licenses for shelters and programs.
§48-26-404 Regulation of intervention programs for perpetrators; required provisions; duties of providers.
§48-26-405 Licensing providers of intervention programs for perpetrators.
§48-26-406 Closure of shelters; provisional licensee waivers.
§48-26-407 Domestic violence shelters not in violation of zoning rules and resolutions as to use.
§48-26-502 Notice of victims' rights, remedies and available services; required information.
§48-26-503 Standards, procedures and curricula.
§48-26-603 Domestic Violence Legal Services Fund.
§48-26-604 Annual reports of shelters and programs receiving funds.
§48-26-803 Judicial education on domestic violence.
§48-26-804 Required curricula for public education system.
§48-26-805 Continuing education for school personnel who are required to report child abuse and neglect.
§48-26-902 Purpose of local advisory councils.
§48-26-1004 Contract by persons using center.
§48-26-1005 Certification of children's centers for the monitoring of custodial responsibility; revocation or suspension of certification.
§48-26-1006 Representations regarding certification; misrepresentations; penalties.
§48-26-1007 Court orders; use of centers without court order.
§48-27-207 Program for victims of domestic violence defined.
§48-27-208 Program of intervention for perpetrators defined.
§48-27-303 Effect of petitioner leaving residence.
§48-27-305 Persons who may file petition.
§48-27-306 Counterclaim or affirmative defenses.
§48-27-308 Charges for fees and costs postponed.
§48-27-310 Full faith and credit.
§48-27-401 Interaction between domestic proceedings.
§48-27-403 Emergency protective orders of court; hearings; persons present.
§48-27-502 Mandatory provisions in protective order.
§48-27-503 Permissive provisions in protective order.
§48-27-504 Provisions in protective order for person witnessing or reporting domestic violence.
§48-27-505 Time period a protective order is in effect; extension of order; notice of order or extension.
§48-27-506 Effect of protective order on real and personal property.
§48-27-507 Mutual protective orders prohibited.
§48-27-508 Costs to be paid to family court fund.
§48-27-509 Conditions of visitation in cases involving domestic violence.
§48-27-511 Purging of domestic violence files.
§48-27-701 Service of pleadings and orders by law-enforcement officers.
§48-27-702 Law-enforcement officers to provide information, transportation and to report suspicions of animal cruelty.
§48-27-802 Maintenance of registry by State Police.
§48-27-803 Limitation on use of information.
§48-27-902 Violations of protective orders; criminal complaints.
§48-27-903 Misdemeanor offenses for violation of protective order, repeat offenses, penalties.
§48-27-1001 Arrest for violations of protective orders.
§48-27-1002 Arrest in domestic violence matters; conditions.
§48-27-1003 Nonjudicial enforcement of order.
§48-27-1103 Training of law-enforcement officers in domestic violence.
§48-27-1104 Judicial education on domestic violence.
§48-27-1105 Rule for time-keeping requirements.
§48-27A-1 Domestic violence fatality review team.
§48-27A-2 Other agencies of government required to cooperate.
§48-27A-3 Law enforcement; prosecution; interference with performance of duties.
§48-28-3 Judicial enforcement of order.
§48-28-4 Nonjudicial enforcement of order.
§48-28-7 Criminal offenses and penalties.
§48-28-9 Uniformity of application and construction.
§48-28A-105 Use of designated address.
§48-28A-106 Disclosure to law enforcement and state agencies.
§48-28A-107 Disclosure pursuant to court order or canceled certification.
§48-28A-109 Secretary of state; liability.
§48-29-102 Emancipation from all disabilities to contract.
§48-29-103 Emancipation from all disabilities as to personal or real property.
§48-29-104 Liability for married woman's torts.
§48-29-105 Emancipation from liability for torts or contracts of spouse.
§48-29-202 Presumption of gift in certain transactions between husband and wife.
§48-29-303 Liability of husband and wife for purchases and services.


Full Case Name: James FITZGERALD, Sr., Chief Humane Officer, Warren County S.P.C.A., Town of Stony Creek, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark VARNEY and Joanna Keller, Defendants-Appellants.
Country of Origin: United States Court Name: County Court, New York, Warren County. Primary Citation: 80 N.Y.S.3d 899 (N.Y. County Ct. July, 18, 2018) Date of Decision: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 Judge Name: Richard B. Meyer, J. Jurisdiction Level: New York Alternate Citation: 60 Misc.3d 943, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 28229 (2018), 2018 WL 3488356 (N.Y. County Ct. July, 18, 2018) Judges: Richard B. Meyer, J. Attorneys: Gregory V. Canale, Queensbury, New York, for Appellants. Meyer & Fuller (Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., of counsel), Lake George, New York, for Respondent.
Summary: Defendant-Respondents appeal a judgment by the Town of Stony Creek Justice Court declaring their dog to be a "dangerous dog" and ordering euthanasia. On December 30, 2017, defendants’ dog bit their 12-year-old grandson on the upper lip. The child and defendants’ dog were side-by-side on a couch when the child reached over toward the dog. The dog unexpectedly jumped up and bit the child on the left side of the mouth. The child received emergency care and was eventually given injections and stitches to close the wound. Testimony revealed that pain only last the first day after the incident and the stiches dissolved within ten days. The dangerous dog was action was commenced by James Fitzgerald, Sr. who was the dog control officer for the town of Stony Creek, and was completed a few months after the incident. At the close of the hearing, the trial judge found by clear and convincing evidence that the dog was dangerous and caused "serious physical injury." This resulted in the court ordering that the dog be "killed" within 30 days absent any appeal. Here, the defendants do not challenge the dangerous dog determination, but instead challenge the euthanasia order based on a finding of "serious physical injury." Under Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(29), "serious physical injury" means "serious or protracted disfigurement." The court examined two different definitions for "serious physical injury" in the Agriculture and Markets Law and the Penal code as well as relevant cases exploring the nature of a “protracted” injury. Here, this court found the evidence at trial did not show the size of the wound or the number of sutures, nor was there evidence scar was distressing to the victim or any person observing him. As such, there was insufficient evidence to show the injury was of a "protracted" nature. Therefore, the court modified the judgment by reversing the finding of aggravated circumstances and the order for humane euthanasia of the dog. The owners are now required to keep the dog held in leash by an adult 21-years old or older and maintain liability insurance of $50,000 - 100,000.
*1 Appeal by the respondents, Mark Varney (Varney) and Jo-Ann Keller, from a March 26, 2018 judgment of the Town of Stony Creek Justice Court (Law, J.) declaring the defendants' dog to be a dangerous dog and directing euthanasia (Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 ).
This appeal arises out of an incident on December 30, 2017 when the defendant Varney's twelve year-old grandson was bitten in the upper lip by the defendants' dog, Onyx. The plaintiff, James Fitzgerald, Sr., in his capacity as the dog control officer of the town of Stony Creek, commenced this action by filing a complaint on February 10, 2018. A notice was issued by the trial court the same day and served upon the defendants with a hearing scheduled for February 12, 2018. The hearing was thereafter adjourned to March 26, 2018.
At the hearing, the child victim testified that at the time of the incident he was visiting at Varney's home, and was sitting on a couch in the living room watching YouTube videos on his phone. Onyx was lying on the couch next to him to his right. The victim looked away from his phone and reached toward Onyx, but before he could touch Onyx the dog jumped towards his face and bit him on the left side of his mouth. Varney took the victim to the Glens Falls Hospital emergency room where he was evaluated and then taken by ambulance to the Albany Medical Center. According to the victim, ten to twenty injections were administered to his upper lip before the doctor, a plastic surgeon, stitched the wound closed. The victim also testified that after being bitten his lip was numb and did not start to hurt until he was being transported to Albany. On a scale of one to ten, the victim stated that the level of pain was five. Finally, the victim testified that the plastic surgeon or a physician's assistant advised him that the scar would “fade away but it will never go away”. Photographs of the victim before the incident and while he was at the Glens Falls Hospital emergency room were received in evidence depicting the victim's face before and immediately after the incident. The victim's mother testified that the swelling in his upper lip went away four or five days later and the stitches dissolved within ten days. She also stated that the victim complained of pain only on the first day after the incident.
At the close of evidence, the trial court determined that the plaintiff “has presented a pretty good case with clear and convincing evidence that there has been a dangerous dog in this house”. The trial court further found “that this dog is dangerous. He attacked without justification and caused serious physical injury.” Finally, the trial court ordered that the dog be “killed” after the thirty day time for the filing of an appeal should no appeal be filed. The defendants filed their notice of appeal on April 24, 2018, thereby automatically staying the order directing that the dog be subjected to euthanasia.
The defendants do not challenge the dangerous dog determination. They do, however, dispute the court's requirement that Onyx be subjected to euthanasia based upon a finding of aggravating circumstances1, namely that Onyx caused serious physical injury to the victim. The defendants contend that there was insufficient proof at trial to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the victim sustained a “serious physical injury”. Under Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(29), “ ‘[s]erious physical injury’ means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious or protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” Specifically, the question here is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the injury to the victim constituted “serious or protracted disfigurement”. For the reasons that follow, it was not.
*2 The definitions of “serious physical injury” in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(29) and Penal Law § 10.00(10) are essentially the same (see, People v. Jornov, 65 A.D.3d 363, 881 N.Y.S.2d 776, 779 [4th Dept., 2009] ), the only difference being that with regard to disfigurement the Penal Law requires that it be both serious and protracted2, while the Agriculture and Markets Law requires either one. “[A] person is disfigured when her [or his] natural beauty, symmetry or appearance is detrimentally altered — i.e., when she [or he] is rendered less attractive. * * * A person is ‘seriously’ disfigured when a reasonable observer would find her [or his] altered appearance distressing or objectionable. The standard is an objective one, but we do not imply that the only relevant factor is the nature of the injury; the injury must be viewed in context, considering its location on the body and any relevant aspects of the victim's overall physical appearance.” (People v. McKinnon, 15 N.Y.3d 311, 315, 910 N.Y.S.2d 767, 769, 937 N.E.2d 524, 526  ). Moreover, “while a likelihood of adverse effects on appearance, functionality, or overall health may qualify as serious physical injury, the mere possibility of such consequences does not.” (People v. Rosado, 88 A.D.3d 454, 455, 930 N.Y.S.2d 10, 11 [1st Dept., 2011] ). The time for determining whether a disfiguring condition is distressing or objectionable is not immediately at the time of disfigurement but, rather, after a reasonable period of healing. Otherwise, even the most non-permanent injury could so qualify due to transitory swelling, bruising and blood.
In the context of civil personal injury litigation arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle, a “serious injury” consists of, among other things, “significant disfigurement” (Insurance Law § 5102[d] ). “The standard by which significant disfigurement is to be determined within the meaning of that statute is whether a reasonable person would view the condition as unattractive, objectionable, or as the subject of pity or scorn (Landsman v. Bunker, 142 A.D.2d 986, 530 N.Y.S.2d 407; Prieston v. Massaro, 107 A.D.2d 742, 743, 484 N.Y.S.2d 104; Waldron v. Wild, 96 A.D.2d 190, 194, 468 N.Y.S.2d 244).” (Zulawski v. Zulawski, 170 A.D.2d 979, 979, 566 N.Y.S.2d 141, 142 [4th Dept., 1991] ). A scar seven-eighths of an inch in length on a personal injury plaintiff's lower lip was held not to be a “serious injury” under that standard (Sirmans v. Mannah, 300 A.D.2d 465, 752 N.Y.S.2d 359 [2d Dept., 2002] ).
In People v. Trombley, 97 A.D.3d 903, 903, 947 N.Y.S.2d 686, 687 (3d Dept., 2012), the court held that although the victim sustained two lacerations to his face, one below his lip and another below his chin, the resulting scars were not objectively distressing or objectionable. Similarly, a broken nose and three chipped teeth requiring replacement every ten years of the plastic material used to replace the chipped enamel due to darkening of that material were not serious physical injuries (People v. Rosado, supra.). On the other hand, in Town of Concord v. Edbauer, 161 A.D.3d 1528, 76 N.Y.S.3d 349, reargument denied 162 A.D.3d 1777, 76 N.Y.S.3d 456 (4th Dept., 2018), the victim was found to have sustained a serious physical injury consisting of “serious or protracted disfigurement” where she was attacked “without provocation, and bit her face, neck, arm, and hand”, requiring “more than 36 internal and external stitches in her face and neck.” Also, in Town of Southampton v. Ciuzio, 19 Misc 3d 140(A), 866 N.Y.S.2d 96 [unreported] [App. Term, 2008] ), a case relied upon by the plaintiff, a victim was found to have sustained a serious physical injury from a dog attack where she had both substantial swelling and scarring to the her cheek, neck, and ear area and her “hearing was still impaired at the time of her testimony that is, 32 days after the attack”, which the court there determined constituted “serious physical injury in the form of ‘protracted ... impairment of the function of [a] bodily organ’ (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 108; Matter of Timothy S., 1 A.D.3d 908, 909, 767 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; People v. Hildenbrandt, 125 A.D.2d 819, 820, 509 N.Y.S.2d 919  ).” No evidence of an injury of a similar nature exists in the present case.
*3 Here, there is no evidence of the size of the wound or the number of sutures which were applied to close it. There is no evidence that the victim's scar at the time of the hearing — just three months after the incident — was distressing or objectionable to a reasonable person observing him. Certainly, the trial court made no such finding or comment, nor did the trial court describe the then appearance of the scar on the record. While there is no definition of “protracted” in the Penal Law, the Agriculture and Markets Law, or even the Insurance Law, “the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof” (People v. Golo, 26 N.Y.3d 358, 361, 23 N.Y.S.3d 110, 44 N.E.3d 185  ). The usual or customary meaning of “protracted” is “lasting for a long time or made to last longer than necessary”3. The testimony of the victim and his mother that the scar would fade away but never go away is not competent evidence of “protracted” — namely, “extended” (see, People v. Stewart, 18 N.Y.3d 831, 832, 939 N.Y.S.2d 273, 274, 962 N.E.2d 764, 765  ) — disfigurement. Simply put, the record before the trial court does not contain sufficient evidence to justify a determination, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that the victim sustained a serious physical injury within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(29).
The judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the finding of aggravated circumstances and the order for humane euthanasia of the dog, Onyx, and instead directing that the defendants restrain Onyx on a leash by an adult of at least twenty-one years of age whenever Onyx is on public premises and maintain liability insurance coverage in an amount of at least $50,000 but not more than $100,000 for personal injury or death resulting from an attack by Onyx; and as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
1 The mere determination that a dog is a “dangerous dog” does not justify humane euthanasia of the animal. “'Dangerous dog' means any dog [except a police work dog] which (i) without justification attacks a person, companion animal as defined in subdivision five of section three hundred fifty of this chapter, farm animal as defined in subdivision four of section three hundred fifty of this chapter or domestic animal as defined in subdivision seven of this section and causes physical injury or death, or (ii) behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to one or more persons, companion animals, farm animals or domestic animals or (iii) without justification attacks a service dog, guide dog or hearing dog and causes physical injury or death.” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 ). Only when the court also finds that the evidence at the trial establishes that there were aggravating circumstances may euthanasia be ordered. Aggravating circumstances consist of proof of one of the following: “(a) the dog, without justification, attacked a person causing serious physical injury or death; or (b) the dog has a known vicious propensity as evidenced by a previous unjustified attack on a person, which caused serious physical injury or death; or (c) the dog, without justification, caused serious physical injury or death to a companion animal, farm animal or domestic animal, and has, in the past two years, caused unjustified physical injury or death to a companion or farm animal ..” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 ).
2 “ ‘Serious physical injury’ means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” (Penal Law § 10.00 ).
3 Cambridge English Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/protracted).


text:
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; Jose Antonio Fuste, District Judge.
Enrique M. Bray and Harvey B. Nachman, with whom Law Office of Enrique M. Bray, was on brief for plaintiffs, appellants Jose Granados Navedo and Carmen D. Osorio Velez.
Daniel R. Dominguez and Dominguez & Totti, on brief for plaintiff, appellant Georgina Carmona O'Neill.
Jose Angel Rey with whom Lino J. Saldana, Melva A. Quintana, Jose Luis Gonzalez Castaner, Rafael Escalera Rodriguez and Luis Sanchez Betances, were on brief for defendants, appellees Eudaldo Baez Galib and Hector Luis Acevedo.
David Rive-Rivera with whom Vargas & Rive, was on brief for defendant, appellee Marcos A. Rodriguez Estrada.
In the appealed cases, the federal district court was asked to review, on federal constitutional grounds, various alleged irregularities occurring in the extremely close election in 1988 for the Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. The court initially abstained in order to allow state proceedings to run their course. Granados-Navedo v. Acevedo, 703 F. Supp. 170 (D.P.R. 1988). Thereafter, in an extensive, carefully considered opinion, Granados-Navedo v. Acevedo, 752 F. Supp. 523 (D.P.R. 1990), the district court determined, after an extensive evidentiary hearing of its own, that the asserted irregularities did not reach the level of federal constitutional violations.
We are satisfied that the district court identified the correct federal constitutional principles, that its factual findings are not clearly erroneous, and that its analysis was consistent with the law. Concededly, it is not always easy to draw the line reflected in the differing outcomes of cases such as Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1978) and Henry v. Connolly, 910 F.2d 1000 (1st Cir. 1990). The district court undertook to do so here conscientiously and, we conclude, correctly. In upholding the district court's decision, we take into account, as the court itself did, the remedial process afforded by the Puerto Rico Election Commission and the careful review of the challenged ballots by the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, reviewed on three occasions by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. See Granados-Navedo v. Rodriguez Estrada, 89 JTS 63 (1989); Granados-Navedo v. Rodriguez Estrada, 89 JTS 78 (1990); Granados-Navedo v. Rodriguez Estrada, 90 JTS 114 (1990). The availability of adequate and reasonable state corrective mechanisms is an important consideration in determining whether or not federal constitutional issues are implicated. Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d at 1077-78.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
[241 U.S. 154, 155] Messrs. Rufus S. Day, Charles Edmond Cotterill, and Edmund W. Van Dyke for plaintiff in error and appellant.
[241 U.S. 154, 157] Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert and Howard Thayer Kingsbury for defendant in error and appellee.
This is a suit by a wife for divorce, alimony pendente lite, and a division of the conjugal property. It has been before this court in the first aspect ( 201 U.S. 303 , 50 L. ed. 765, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485), and now comes here on matters affecting the division of property, beginning with the fundamental objection that the division could not be asked in the divorce suit, but must proceed on the footing of a decree already made. As to this it is enough to say that no such error was assigned as a ground for appeal, and the objection comes too late. At the previous stage the right of the plaintiff to her proportion of the conjugal property, to alimony pending suit, and to other allowances claimed, was said to be the basis of our jurisdiction. 201 U.S. 318 . De Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U.S. 293, 294 , 60 S. L. ed. --, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109. The court of first instance had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and the separation or union of the two causes was merely a question of procedure and convenience. The defendant im- [241 U.S. 154, 158] pliedly admitted the jurisdiction by pleading that there was no common property, and that 'therefore' the separation should be denied. After the matter had been adverted to by the trial judge and the joinder declared proper, it was dealt with as legitimate by the supreme court, and upon a petition for rehearing the only objections urged by the defendant concerned matters of detail. There is every reason that the local practice sanctioned in this case by the local courts should not be disturbed.
The next error alleged in argument also was not assigned. It is that Judge Norris, who first heard the evidence, having resigned, Judge McCabe, of the court of first instance, who finally decided the separation of conjugal property, was designated by Judge Ross (before whom otherwise the case would have come), on the ground that the latter was disqualified; and that Judge Ross had no power to do so under the Code of Civil Procedure then in force. Upon this point again we should not disturb the course adopted by the local tribunals without stronger reasons than are offered here, and therefore do not discuss the question at length. The parties could have agreed in writing upon a judge, and they did agree in writing at a later stage that Judge McCabe should decide the case without waiting for the action of the assessors whom the law provides to assist upon matters of fact. This objection, like the preceding, seems not to have been even suggested to the supreme court of the Philippines. To listen to it now would be not to prevent, but to accomplish, an injustice not to be tolerated except under the most peremptory requirement of law.
The next point argued, again not assigned as error, is that it seems from the opinion of the judge of first instance that the trial was had upon the evidence that had been offered before Judge Norris. If we are to assume the fact, it is a most extraordinary suggestion that, even though the parties seem to have assented to the course [241 U.S. 154, 159] pursued, due process of law forbids a hearing upon a transcript of evidence formerly heard in court. We shall say no more upon this point.
The errors that were assigned may be disposed of with equal brevity. The first one is the taking of July 5, 1902, the date of the decree of divorce, afterwards affirmed, as the date for liquidating the wife's claim. It is urged that there was no formal decree of separation of the property, and that until such an order had been made the court had no right to enter a judgment. It also is argued that there was no such inventory as was required by law. But the testimony and other evidence are not before us, and, apart from our often-stated unwillingness to interfere with matters of local administration unless clear and important error is shown, there is nothing in the record sufficient to control the opinion of the supreme court of the Islands that 'the method adopted by [the judge of first instance] in liquidating the assets of the conjugal partnership was substantially in accord with the method prescribed in the Code.' [25 Philippine, 445.] We disallow the attempt to reopen some questions of detail, such as a charge of estimated profits, upon this and other grounds. See Piza Hermanos v. Caldentey, 231 U.S. 690 , 58 L. ed. 439, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 253.
The only remaining item is charging interest on the judgment from July 5, 1902. But that was the date at which, but for the delays of the law, the wife would have received her dues, the husband has had the use of the money meanwhile, and we are not prepared to say that it was not at least within the discretion of the court to allow the charge, notwithstanding the success of the husband in reducing the amount on appeal. Stoughton v. Lynch, 2 Johns. Ch. 209, 219; Hollister v. Barkley, 11 N. H. 501, 511. See Barnhart v. Edwards, 128 Cal. 572, 61 Pac. 176; McLimans v. Lancaster, 65 Wis. 240, 26 N. W. 566; Rawlings v. Anheuser- Busch Brewing Co. 69 Neb. 34, 94 N. W. 1001. A discretion is recognized even in actions of tort. Eddy v. [241 U.S. 154, 160] Lafayette, 163 U.S. 456, 467 , 41 S. L. ed. 225, 229, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1082; Frazer v. Bigelow Carpet Co. 141 Mass. 126, 4 N. E. 620. The judgment upon the appeal will be affirmed and the writ of error dismissed. De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201 U.S. 303 , 50 L. ed. 765, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 485; Gsell v. Insular Collector of Customs, 239 U.S. 93 , 60 L. ed. --, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 39.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
M.J. McNallan, D.A. Ersoy, Y. Gogotsi and S. Welz, Process for converting a metal carbide to diamond by etching in halogens, University of Illinois at Chicago, Filing date: Apr 19, 2001, Application number: 9/838,458, Publication number: US 2001/0047980 A1.
U.S. Patent 8,137,650, Y. Gogotsi, M. Barsoum, Nanoporous Carbon with Tunable Pore Size, Priority: July 1, 2003, issued March 20, 2012, Drexel University, Application number: 10/561,768, Publication number: US 2006/0165584 A1, PCT US2004/021382, WO2005/007566.
Y. Gogotsi, M.J. McNallan, Boron Nitride-Aluminum Nitride (BAN) Interfaces and Coatings and Methods for Their Production and Use, Filing date Apr. 28, 2004, Application number: 10/555,048, Publication number: US 2006/0134415 A1, Drexel University, PCT US2004/012965, WO2005/092610.
US Patent No. 7,964,159, issued June 11, 2011. H.H. Bau, K.M. Byong, M. Riegelman, Y. Gogotsi, Nanotube Based Sensors and Probes, Filing date July 8, 2005, University of Pennsylvania, Application number: 11/177,111, Publication number: US 2007/0009379 A1.
E. Hoffman, G. Yushin, Y. Gogotsi. M. Barsoum, Process for Producing Nanoporous Carbide Derived Carbon with Large Specific Surface Area, Filing date Nov. 23. 2005, Drexel University, US Provisional Patent Application No. 60/739,910. US Patent Application filed November 21, 2006, PCT/US2006/045154.
Y. Gogotsi, A. Lloyd, S. Mikhalovsky, G. Yushin, Mesoporous Carbons. PCT/US2006/047219 Filed December 8, 2006.
E. Hoffman, G. Yushin, Y. Gogotsi, M. Barsoum, Nanoporous Carbonaceous Membranes and Related Methods, Drexel University, Priority: 12.05.2006, WO/2007/133700, PCT/US2007/011442.
WO Patent 2,008,133,672, M. Havel, Y. Gogotsi, K. Behler, D. Mattia, Nanowires and Coatings of Self-Assembled Nanoparticles, Priority: 22.12.2006, WO/2008/133672, PCT/US2007/026195.
US Patent 8,498,097. Y. Gogotsi, P. Simon, C. Largeot, C. Portet, J. Chmiola, P.-L. Taberna, Supercapacitor Compositions, Devices and Related Methods, Filing date January 31, 2008, issued July 30, 2013.
Y. Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, S. Osswald, G. Yushin, Process of Purifying Nanodiamond Compositions and Applications Thereof, Filing Date: 15.05.2006 , WO/2007/133765, PCT/US2007/011607.
Y. Gogotsi, H. Bau, M. Schrlau. Fluidic Devices for In-Situ Imaging and Spectroscopy. U.S. Provisional Application 61/235,467 filed August 20, 2009.
Y. Gogosti, G. Friedman, E. Vitol, Devices for Intracellular Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy. U.S. Patent Application Number 12/782,885 filed May 19, 2010.
Y. Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, K. Behler, M. Havel, Polyamide Nanofibers and Methods Thereof. U.S. Patent Application Number 12/101,319 filed April 11, 2008.
Y. Gogotsi, Carbon Nanotubes Containing Confined Copper Azide. U.S. Patent Application Number 13/182,983 filed July 14, 2011.
Y. Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, A. Razavi, Nanodiamond Enhanced Efficiency. U.S. Patent Application Number 12/399,844, filed March 6, 2009.
Y. Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, A. Razavi, Nanodiamond Enhanced Drugs. U.S. Patent Application Number 12/626,614 filed November 25, 2009.
G. Zhou, P. Lelkes, Y. Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, Functionalized Nanodiamond Reinforced Biopolymers and Uses for Microporous Surgical Fixation Devices. U.S. Patent Application Number 13/498,436 filed March 27, 2012.
Y. Gogotsi, C. Karwacki, G. Peterson, Oxidation Catalysts Useful for Ambient Temperature Operation. U.S. Patent Application Number 13/051,051 filed March 18, 2011.
Y. Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, P. Simon, P.-L. Taberna, J. McDonough, Novel Applications for Alliform Carbon. PCT/US2011/051903 filed September 16, 2011.
M. Naguib, M. Barsoum, Y. Gogotsi, Compositions Comprising Free Standing Two Dimensional Crystals. PCT/US12/43273 filed June 20, 2012.
Zhou, P. Lelkes, Y.Gogotsi, V. Mochalin, Functionalized Nanodiamond Reinforced Biopolymers. Claims Priority to Int’l Application No. PCT/US10/51176, filed October 1, 2010 and U.S. Prov’l Patent Appl. No. 61/248,202, filed October 2, 2009. U.S. Patent Application No. 13/498,436, filed March 27, 2012. U.S. Patent No. 9,186,190, issued November 17, 2015.

matches:
Application No. 60
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
Application No. 13


text:
IRS has issued proposed regs that would provide guidance on the foreign tax credit (FTC) for businesses and individuals. The proposed regs reflect changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including the expansion of the number of separate income categories for the FTC limitation, as well as other statutory amendments. This article examines the proposed regs on the FTC limitation under Code Sec. 904.
For an article on the allocation and apportionment of deductions and adjustments to the FTC limitation, see here.
For an article on the determination of deemed paid credits under Code Sec. 960 and gross up under Code Sec. 78, see here.
Background. Both the U.S. and foreign countries may tax the foreign source income of U.S. taxpayers. To ease this double taxation burden, the Code permits most U.S. taxpayers who pay income taxes to a foreign country to either deduct the taxes from gross income for U.S. purposes or credit them dollar for dollar against their U.S. income tax liability on foreign source income. (Code Sec. 901) The FTC is computed separately for certain categories (also referred to as “baskets”) of income.
New proposed guidance on FTC limitation. The proposed regs update Reg. §1.904-1 through Reg. § 1.904-6 to eliminate deadwood and reflect statutory amendments made to Code Sec. 904 before the TCJA, including the repeal of the overall limitation and per-country limitation and the elimination of various separate categories in Code Sec. 904(d)(1).
Transition rules—new separate categories of income. The TCJA added two new separate FTC limitation categories—Code Sec. 951A category income and foreign branch category income—to the previously existing general and passive income categories. (Code Sec. 904(d)) The proposed regs provide a variety of transition rules for accouting for these new categories.
…Carryovers and carrybacks. The TCJA didn’t provide anyrules for assigning carryforwards of unused foreign taxes earned in pre-2018 tax years to a different separate category. Accordingly, under Prop Reg § 1.904-2(j)(1)(ii), if unused foreign taxes paid or accrued or deemed paid with respect to a separate category of income are carried forward to a tax year beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, those taxes are allocated to the same post-2017 separate category as the pre-2018 separate category from which the unused foreign taxes are carried.
However, to prevent double taxation from occurring in certain situations, Prop Reg § 1.904-2(j)(1)(iii) provides an exception that permits taxpayers to assign unused foreign taxes that were paid or accrued in the pre-2018 separate category for general category income to the post-2017 separate category for foreign branch category income to the extent they would have been assigned to that separate category if the taxes had been paid or accrued in a post-2017 tax year, with any remaining unused taxes assigned to the post-2017 separate category for general category income.
…Loss recapture. The proposed regs provide transition rules for: (i) recapture in a post-2017 tax year of an overall foreign loss (OFL) or separate limitation loss (SLL) in a pre-2018 separate category that offset U.S. source income or income in another pre-2018 separate category, respectively, in a pre-2018 tax year, and (ii) recapture of an overall domestic loss (ODL) that offset income in a pre-2018 separate category in a pre-2018 tax year.
Separate categories—how certain specific types of income are treated. The proposed regs provide amendments to the rules relating to the categorization of a number of specific types of income, as explained below.
In addition, in light of the expanded categories, Prop Reg § 1.904-4(e) provides that certain financial services income, which was previously treated as general category income, is generally treated as general category income if it does not fit within one of the newer, more specific categories—i.e., foreign branch category income or Code Sec. 951A income.
…Section 78 gross up; Section 986(c) gain or loss. Prop Reg § 1.904-4(o) assigns the gross up under Code Sec. 78 to the same separate category as the deemed paid taxes, and Prop Reg § 1.904-4(p) assigns gain or loss under Code Sec. 986(c) with respect to a distribution of previously taxed earnings and profits (PTEP) to the separate category from which the distribution was made.
…Conforming changes; look-through rules. The proposed regs make a number of conforming changes to reflect the change of Code Sec. 904(d)(2)(E) from the term “noncontrolled section 902 corporation” to “noncontrolled 10-percent owned foreign corporation” (Prop Reg § 1.904-5(a)(4)), as well as to reflect the repeal of Section 902 and revisions to Code Sec. 960.
Allocation and apportionment of foreign taxes. Code Sec. 904(d)(2)(H)(i) provides a special rule for allocating foreign tax that is imposed on an amount that does not constitute income under Federal income tax principles (a “base difference”). Special rules are also provided for timing differences.
The proposed regs clarify that base differences arise only in limited circumstances, such as in the case of categories of items that are excluded from income for Federal income tax purposes but may be taxed as income under foreign law. (Prop Reg § 1.904-6(a)(1)(iv)) In addition, the proposed regs clarify that the fact that a distribution of previously taxed earnings and profits is exempt from Federal income tax does not mean that a tax imposed on the distribution is attributable to a base difference. Instead, because the previously taxed earnings and profits were included in U.S. taxable income in a prior year, the tax imposed on the distribution is treated as attributable to a timing difference and is allocated to the separate category to which the earnings and profits from which the distribution was paid are attributable.
Under the proposed regs, a U.S. or foreign partnership does not characterize any of its income as foreign branch category income. Instead, a distributive share of a partnership’s income may be characterized as foreign branch category income in the hands of certain U.S. partners. In order to ensure that creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) that are allocated to a partner that has a distributive share of income that is assigned to the foreign branch category are appropriately assigned, Prop Reg §.904-6(b)(4) provides rules for allocating and apportioning CFTEs to the foreign branch category.
Effective/applicability dates: In general, the portions of the proposed regs that relate to statutory amendments made by the TCJA are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after Dec. 22, 2017. (Code Sec. 7805(b)(2), which provides that any regs issued within 18 months of the enactment of the statutory provision to which the reg relates may be issued retroactively) Other portions of the proposed regs that do not relate to the TCJA apply for tax years ending on or after the date filed for public inspection in the Federal Register. Portions of the proposed regs that contain rules that relate to the TCJA as well as rules that do not relate to the TCJA generally apply to tax years that satisfy both of the following two conditions: (1) the tax year begins after Dec. 22, 2017, and (2) ends on or after the date filed for public inspection in the Federal Register.
References: For the FTC in general, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶ O-4000 et seq; United States Tax Reporter ¶ 9014. For the separate FTC limitation categories, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶ O-4300 et seq; United States Tax Reporter ¶ 9044.01.

matches:
§1
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1


text:
The following is a list of decisions made or participated in by Mr. Justice Rothstein at the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court Trial Division. The hyperlinks are to reports of the decisions in CanLII — the Canadian Legal Information Institute — which maintains a freely available database of legal material.
Salt Spring Aquafarms Ltd. v. Salt Spring Harbour Authority, 2006 FCA 20.
Canada v. Robertson, 2006 FCA 18.
Prairie Acid Rain Coalition v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), 2006 FCA 31.
Jagpal v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 26.
Canada v. Morin, 2006 FCA 25.
Moussa v. Canada (Public Service Commission), 2006 FCA 21.
Ducharme v. Canada, 2005 FCA 137.
Telus Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union, 2005 FCA 146.
Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Swiftsure Taxi Co. Ltd., 2005 FCA 136.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Williams, 2005 FCA 126.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Fetherston, 2005 FCA 111.
Pashteh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 85.
Telecommunications Workers Union v. Canadian Industrial Relations Board, 2005 FCA 83.
Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) v. Artistic Ideas Inc., 2005 FCA 68.
El Quardi v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FCA 42.
Canada v. Stoney Band, 2005 FCA 15.
Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 1.
Grunwald v. Canada, 2005 FCA 421.
Calgon Carbon Corporation v. North Bay, 2005 FCA 410.
Telus Communications Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 409.
Azizi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 406.
Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2005 FCA 405.
Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canadian Transportation Agency, 2005 FCA 400.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Nash, 2005 FCA 386.
1243573 Ontario Inc. v. Canada, 2005 FCA 359.
Bouttavong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 341.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tihomirovs, 2005 FCA 308.
Rezek v. Canada, 2005 FCA 227.
Moriyama v. Canada, 2005 FCA 207.
Powell v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 202.
Martin v. Canada, 2005 FCA 156.
Shilling v. Canada, 2004 FCA 416.
Genpharm Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., 2004 FCA 393.
Kelian v. Canada, 2004 FCA 385.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Shermetov, 2004 FCA 373.
La-Z-Boy Canada Ltd. v. Allan Morgan and Sons. Ltd, 2004 FCA 368.
Symbol Technologies Canada ULC v. Barcode Systems Inc., 2004 FCA 339.
Huskinson v. Canada, 2004 FCA 333.
Chaya v. Canada, 2004 FCA 327.
Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 312.
Jakutavicius v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 289.
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Canada, 2004 FCA 278.
China Ceramic Proppant Ltd. v. Carbo Ceramics Inc., 2004 FCA 274.
Canadian Waste Services Holdings, Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition), 2004 FCA 273.
Télé-mobile Company v. Telecommunications Workers Union, 2004 FCA 268.
Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Jaballah, 2004 FCA 257.
Townsend v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 247.
Apotex Inc. v. Bayer AG, 2004 FCA 242.
Canada v. Canadian Utilities Ltd., 2004 FCA 234.
Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 2004 FCA 232.
Advanced Business Interiors v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 230.
Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 212.
Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2004 FCA 168.
Parks Canada v. Sunshine Village Corp., 2004 FCA 166.
Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. v. National Energy Board, 2004 FCA 149.
Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Air Canada, 2004 FCA 113.
Pannu v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 90.
Canada (Canadian Heritage) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2004 FCA 66.
Universal Foods Inc. v. Hermes Food Importers Ltd., 2004 FCA 53.
Doblej v. Canada (Canadian Employment Insurance Commission), 2004 FCA 19.
L’Hirondelle v. Canada, 2004 FCA 16.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thanabalasingham, 2004 FCA 4.
Mackenzie v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 37.
Yamani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCA 482.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Misquadis, 2003 FCA 473.
Genpharm Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., 2003 FCA 467.
Webster v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2003 FCA 442.
Francella v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 441.
Charette v. Delta Controls, 2003 FCA 425.
Apotex Inc. v. AB Hassle, 2003 FCA 409.
Sourani v. Canada, 2003 FCA 395.
Marie v. Wanderingspirit, 2003 FCA 385.
Wanderingspirit v. Marie, 2003 FCA 384.
Kaulius v. Canada, 2003 FCA 371.
Martel v. Council of the Samson Band, 2003 FCA 355.
VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Cairns, 2003 FCA 319.
VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Cairns, 2003 FCA 308.
Canada v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd., 2003 FCA 294.
Kovacevic v. Canada, 2003 FCA 293.
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Transportation Agency), 2003 FCA 271.
Apotex Inc. v. Ferring Inc., 2003 FCA 274.
J.D. Irving Ltd. v. General Longshore Workers, Checkers and Shipliners of the Port of Saint John, 2003 FCA 266.
Laginha v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2003 FCA 258.
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. 960122 Ontario Ltd., 2003 FCA 256.
Andrews v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 253.
Chow v. Canada, 2003 FCA 250.
Renko v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 251.
Brown v. Canada, 2003 FCA 192.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Quon, 2003 FCA 153.
Canada v. Aucoin, 2003 FCA 146.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Connell, 2003 FCA 144.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dragan, 2003 FCA 139.
Novopharm Ltd. v. Canada, 2003 FCA 112.
Meyer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 107.
Balisky v. Canada (Minister of Natural Resources), 2003 FCA 104.
Mimetix Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Canada, 2003 FCA 106.
Shebib v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 88.
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 86.
Hofer v. Canada, 2003 FCA 63.
Alberta (Registered Public Accountants Assn.) v. Society of Professional Accountants of Canada, 2003 FCA 61.
Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Superior Propane Inc., 2003 FCA 53.
Rich v. Canada, 2003 FCA 38.
Westshore Terminals Ltd. v. Vancouver Port Authority, 2002 FCA 517.
Penner International Inc. v. Canada, 2002 FCA 453.
Nelson v. Canada, 2002 FCA 451.
Granbury Developments Ltd. v. Canada, 2002 FCA 438.
Consorzio del prosciutto di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats, 2002 FCA 417.
Corroll v. R., 2002 FCA 388.
Novopharm Ltd. v. Astrazeneca AB, 2002 FCA 387.
Canadian Magen David Adom for Israel v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2002 FCA 323.
Canada v. Gifford, 2002 FCA 301.
Genpharm Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2002 FCA 290.
Syntex (U.S.A.) L.L.C. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2002 FCA 289.
Cassels v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 278.
Rainbow Pipe Line Co. Ltd. v. Canada, 2002 FCA 259.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Vasiliadis, 2002 FCA 262.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Buchanan, 2002 FCA 231.
Erdmann v. Canada, 2002 FCA 240.
Tsukada v. Canada, 2002 FCA 241.
McLarty v. Canada, 2002 FCA 206.
Canada v. Webster, 2002 FCA 205.
Witkin v. Canada, 2002 FCA 174.
Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd. v. Baker Petrolite Corp., 2002 FCA 158.
Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Tigney Technology Inc., 2002 FCA 137.
Reebok Canada v. Canada (Deputy Minister of National Revenue), 2002 FCA 133.
Staltari v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCA 108.
Caverly v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2002 FCA 92.
Canada (Employment Insurance Commission) v. Bentley, 2002 FCA 49.
Canada v. Franklin, 2002 FCA 38.
Canada (Cultural Property Export Review Board) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2002 FCA 37.
Dong v. Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCA 388.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Thiara, 2001 FCA 386.
Napier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 358.
Canada v. Gibson, 2001 FCA 356.
L’Hirondelle v. Canada, 2001 FCA 339.
L’Hirondelle v. Canada, 2001 FCA 338.
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Moffatt, 2001 FCA 327.
Transcanada Pipelines Ltd. v. The Queen, 2001 FCA 314 .
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Moffatt, 2001 FCA 281.
OSFC Holdings Ltd. v. Canada, 2001 FCA 260.
Barrie Public Utilities v. Canadian Cable Television Association, 2001 FCA 236.
The Queen v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., 2001 FCA 213.
Keeping v. Canada, 2001 FCA 182.
Murphy v. Canada (Minster of National Revenue), 2001 FCA 181.
Nash v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 183.
Degree v. Canada, 2001 FCA 152.
Markevich v. Canada, 2001 FCA 144.
Gko Engineering v. Canada, 2001 FCA 123.
Bemar Construction Ltd. v. Canada, 2001 FCA 117.
Chu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCA 113.
Gsw Inc. v. Canada (Registraire des Marque de Commerce), 2001 FCA 89.
Paul v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2001 FCA 69.
Price v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2001 FCA 68.
Letendre v. Canada (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2001 FCA 67.
Gko Engineering A Partnership v. The Queen, 2001 FCA 73.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. British Columbia (Hydro and Power Authority), 2001 FCA 62.
Supreme Steel Ltd. v. Canada, 2001 FCA 21.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. British Columbia (Hydro and Power Authority), 2001 FCA 20.
Letizia v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, 2001 FCA 16.
Lerric Investments Corp. v. Canada, 2001 FCA 14.
Apotex Inc. v. Welcome Foundation Ltd., A-462-98.
London Life Insurance Co. v. Canada, A-581-98, December 21, 2000.
Ominayak v. Verre, A-120-00, December 13, 2000.
Talijit v. Canada (Attorney General), A-595-99, December 13, 2000.
Hodgson v. Ermineskin Indian Band No. 942, A-183-00, December 12, 2000.
Machtinger v. Canada, a-307-98, November 24, 2000.
Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc, A-732-99, November 23, 2000.
Gaucher v. Canada, A-275-00, November 16, 2000.
Walker v. Randall, A-625-99, November 3, 2000.
Haas Estate v. Canada, A-709-99, November 3, 2000.
Sim & Mcburney v. Gesco Industries, Inc., A-866-97, October 26, 2000.
Goldenburg Estate v. Canada, A-88-99, October 26, 2000.
Oxford Building Maintenance Engineering v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services), A-577-99, October 24, 2000.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mckinnon, A-421-98, October 24, 2000.
Riddell v. Canada, A-748-96, October 23, 2000.
Rudowski v. Canada, A-665-98, October 4, 2000.
Saturn Construction System Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), A-410-99, October 4, 2000.
Crummer v. Canada (Attorney General), A-207-99, October 4, 2000.
Canada v. Milewski, A-596-99, September 26, 2000.
Canada v. Huanz and Danczkay Ltd., A-500-98, September 19, 2000.
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), A-344-98, August 3, 2000.
Offshore Logistics Inc. v. Halifax Longshoremen’s Association, Local 269, A-425-99, July 17, 2000.
Novartis Ag v. Abbott Laboratories Ltd., A-525-99, June 19, 2000.
Ruffolo v. Canada, A-565-98, May 23, 2000.
Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Marck & Co., Inc., A-804-99, April 20, 2000.
Desnomie v. Canada, A-533-98, April 19, 2000.
Solis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), A-360-98, March 28, 2000.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Marinos, A-275-98, March 10, 2000.
Point Grey Golf & Country Club v. Canada, A-998-96, March 9, 2000.
Canada v. Ruland Realty Ltd., A-584-98, February 10, 2000.
Milliken & Co. v. Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc., A-120-98, January 26, 2000.
Bow River Pipelines Ltd. v. Canada, A-359-98, January 18, 2000.
World Relief Canada v. Canada, A-833-96, November 10, 1999.
Greater Europe Mission (Canada) v. Canada, A-882-96, November 10, 1999.
Smc Pneumatics (Canada) Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), A-397-97, October 21, 1999.
Union of Nova Scotia Indians v. Maritime and Northern Pipelines Management Ltd., A-676-98, October 20, 1999.
Ward v. Samson Cree Nation No. 444, A-616-97, August 31, 1999.
Alberta Wheat Pool v. Canada, A-835-96, April 13, 1999.
Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd. v. Canada (National Energy Board), A-908-96, March 15, 1999.
Borzenko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 910.
Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 911.
Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 906.
Sy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 905.
Afroogh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 902.
Chinna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 901.
Ming v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 870.
Shahinian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 897.
Bondar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 879.
Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 871.
Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 869.
Bashir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 868.
Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 857.
Brar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 847.
Mustafa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 843.
Pepa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 834.
Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 825.
Mackinnon v. R., 2002 FCT 824.
Qin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 815.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Gautama, 2002 FCT 813.
Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 769.
Patel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 903.
Kunchur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1135.
Verma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 945.
Abusalih v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 961.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Holub, 2001 FCT 959.
Patel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 960.
Ke v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 947.
Lotey v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 950.
Seepersaud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 948.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 946.
Tran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 919.
Cho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 908.
Kostev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 913.
Ye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 912.
Velychko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 902.
D’souza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 894.
Oswan Tucker and Tucker & Son Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), T-159-98, November 16, 2000.
Maheswaran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-6215-99, October 26, 2000.
Xue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4477-99, October 23, 2000.
Fonseka v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-33-00, October 18, 2000.
Hou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5351-99, October 18, 2000.
Veluppillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5509-99, October 18, 2000.
Tedla v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3637-99, October 17, 2000.
M.M. International Business Directories Ltd. v. International Business Index, T-1049-00, October 3, 2000.
M.M. International Business Directories Ltd. v. International Business Index, T-1049-00, August 22, 2000.
Mamar, Inc. v. Results Marketing Ltd., T-1241-00, August 17, 2000.
Frankowski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), T-1200-99, August 4, 2000.
Collins v. Canada, T-1980-88, October 25, 1999.
Husein v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5254-98, September 8, 1999.
Khairoodin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-131-99, August 13, 1999.
Cheema v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1452-98, August 11, 1999.
Silva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-615-99, August 10, 1999.
Khazneh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-6557-98, August 9, 1999.
Abbas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4900-98, July 30, 1999.
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. Memorial University of Newfoundland, T-1164-97, July 30, 1999.
Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5933-98, July 30, 1999.
Karunapathy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5854-98, July 30, 1999.
Serrano v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-6093-99, July 30, 1999.
Westwood Shipping Lines Inc. v. Geo International Inc., T-359-98, March 23, 1999.
Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyar Rt v. Apotex Inc., T-2520-93, February 11, 1999.
Kandaurova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-74-99, February 5, 1999.
Brar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-213-98, January 11, 1999.
Chiem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-838-98, January 11, 1999.
Helm v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4668-97, December 16, 1998.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tan, IMM-3954-97, December 11, 1998.
Duong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-874-98, December 11, 1998.
Guruge v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-824-98, December 11, 1998.
Phillip v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-434-98, December 11, 1998.
Filodordo Calze S.P.A. v. Doris Hosiery Mills Ltd., T-537-98, December 2, 1998.
Scrimbitt v. Canada, T-1804-97, December 2, 1998.
Shanmugalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1167-97, December 2, 1998.
Zolfigar v. Canada, IMM-6021-98, December 2, 1998.
Goh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3157-97, December 1, 1998.
White v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5328-97, December 1, 1998.
Vasquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1979-97, November 26, 1998.
Homayouni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5252-97, November 25, 1998.
Javaid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-265-98, November 25, 1998.
Jie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-631-98, November 25, 1998.
Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), T-1363-98, November 19, 1998.
Shahid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3699-97, November 18, 1998.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-729-98, November 17, 1998.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Liu, T-2497-97, November 16, 1998.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lu, T-624-98, November 16, 1998.
Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5242-97, November 16, 1998.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tai, T-1330-97, November 5, 1998.
Warsi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3055-97, November 5, 1998.
Kalashnikov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4743-97, November 3, 1998.
Xu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5076-97, November 3, 1998.
Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-613-97, November 2, 1998.
Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3748-97, October 29, 1998.
Sahota v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3943-97, October 29, 1998.
Salim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3767-97, October 29, 1998.
Apotex Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., T-411-98, October 28, 1998.
Ghreibi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-217-98, October 27, 1998.
Kanapathipillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3680-97, October 27, 1998.
Kanthavanam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3678-97, October 27, 1998.
Kamal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1166-98, October 26, 1998.
Redman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5109-97, October 26, 1998.
Sailopal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-757-98, October 26, 1998.
Ponce de Leon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5124-97, October 23, 1998.
Gramaglia v. Canada (Attorney General), T-610-98, September 23, 1998.
Brant v. Canada, T-528-98, September 16, 1998.
Ghani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5170-97, September 14, 1998.
Elbarbari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4444-97, September 9, 1998.
Rycroft v. Canada (Attorney General), T-349-98, September 8, 1998.
Westwood Shipping Lines Inc. v. Geo International Inc., T-359-98, September 1, 1998.
Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4741-97, August 31, 1998.
Hameed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4700-97, August 31, 1998.
Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4458-97, August 31, 1998.
Molla v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5042-97, August 31, 1998.
Paramanantham v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3834-97, August 31, 1998.
Shan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4104-97, August 31, 1998.
Minhas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3860-97, August 27, 1998.
Bayer AG v. Apotex Inc., T-35-96, August 21, 1998.
Alvapillai, Ramasethu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4226-97, August 14, 1998.
Dias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4235-97, August 13, 1998.
Ikram v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4698-97, August 13, 1998.
Nasufi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4436-97, August 13, 1998.
Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3983-97, August 12, 1998.
Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-5243-97, August 12, 1998.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, DES-1-98, August 11, 1998.
Jamshidi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3633-97, July 10, 1998.
Lobzov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3316-97, July 10, 1998.
Ratneshwaran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3540-97, July 10, 1998.
Chong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3438-97, July 7, 1998.
Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2807-97, July 7, 1998.
Sivakumar v. Canada, IMM-1600-95, July 3, 1998.
Carrio v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2592-97, July 2, 1998.
Kumaravel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3170-97, June 30, 1998.
Westwood Shipping Lines Inc. v. Geo International Inc., T-359-98, June 24, 1998.
Aic Ltd. v. Infinity Investment Counsel Ltd., T-1712-97, June 10, 1998.
Hui, Re, T-2156-97, June 9, 1998.
Gaijc v. Canada, T-673-98, June 8, 1998.
Aguirre v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4110-97, May 29, 1998.
Shergill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-4190-97, May 29, 1998.
Chan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3437-97, May 26, 1998.
Dodds (Re), T-1400-97, May 22, 1998.
Dodds (Re), T-1401-97, May 22, 1998.
Mislan v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), T-2790-96, May 22, 1998.
Cross v. Canada, T-1249-89, May 8, 1998.
Giesbrecht v. Canada, T-377-98, May 8, 1998.
Armes v. Canada (Parole Board), T-1654-97, May 7, 1998.
Aic Limited v. Infinity Investment Counsel Ltd., T-1712-97, May 5, 1998.
Brant v. Canada, T-528-98, May 5, 1998.
Klinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2511-97, April 30, 1998.
Lazaro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2138-97, April 30, 1998.
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), T-633-95, April 23, 1998.
Mehrabani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1798-97, April 3, 1998.
Shahpari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2327-97, April 3, 1998.
Havana House Cigar & Tobacco v. Persons Unknown, T-2521-97, April 2, 1998.
Nguyen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-2196-97, April 2, 1998.
Visx Inc. v. Nidek Co., T-195-94, April 1, 1998.
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), T-633-95, March 5, 1998.
Ambros v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1581-97, February 27, 1998.
Du v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1123-97, February 27, 1998.
Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1658-97, February 27, 1998.
Miraj S.A. v. Gerovital, Inc., T-2745-97, February 27, 1998.
Owusu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1541-97, February 27, 1998.
Tekotev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1275-97, February 27, 1998.
Walcott v. Canada (Employment and Immigration), 97-T-45, February 27, 1998.
Bonamy v. Canada (Correctional Service), T-894-97, February 26, 1998.
Bonamy v. Canada (Correctional Service), T-894-97, January 21, 1998.
Sasan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-1179-97, January 6, 1998.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.