It was not unreasonable for the trial court to find that James failed to meet his burden of proving a material and substantial change in circumstances, nor was it unreasonable for the trial court to find that James was intentionally unemployed. Consequently, the court was entitled to look to his earning potential based on his work experience.
July 12, 2004 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania with their dedication to law.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
GlobeSt. Women of Influence Conference celebrates the women who drive the commercial real estate industry forward.
Boutique suburban Philadelphia area based Personal Injury firm seeks a very motivated associate with a minimum of 5 years practice experienc...
Duane Morris LLP has an opening for a mid-level corporate associate in its New York office. Join an exciting and growing M&A practice in...
Lax & Neville LLP, a boutique law firm specializing in securities arbitration/litigation, financial services regulatory defense, financi...
MARTIN, CLEARWATER & BELL LLP COUNSELORS AT LAW IN MEMORY OF FRANCIS PETER BENSEL
GILL & CHAMAS Congratulations to our partner and friend,DAVID H. LANDE, ESQ on his appointment to Judge in the Division of Workers Compensation.
