Cases

[Cite as Cook v. Cook, 2024-Ohio-328.] COURT OF APPEALS PERRY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JOSHUA D. COOK JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs-

#29810-r-SRJ 2022 S.D. 74 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA **** ALICE MARIE COOK, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VERNON ROY COOK, Defendant and Appellant. **** APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TOBIAS COOK, § § No. 187, 2021 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § §

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGOn appellant's motion for stay of court of appeals' judgment. Motion granted. Bond posted with the trial court continued pending resolution of this appeal.

Filed 1/23/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2020 ND 11 Anna Cook, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Chris Cook, Defendant and Appellant and State of North Dakota, Statutory Real Party in Interest No. 20190145 Appeal from the District

[Cite as Cook v. Cook, 2020-Ohio-225.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) THERESA JO COOK C.A. No. 18CA0042-M Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DAVID ERIC COOK

[Cite as Cook v. Cook, 2019-Ohio-1961.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JUDGES: JULIE M. COOK : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Earl

Conner, J., dissenting. *292I again respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion in response to appellant's motion for rehearing or clarification, for the same reasons expressed in my initial dissent. After the original opinion was published, the Chief Judges of the Eleventh, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Judicial Circuits fi

Moore, Chief Judge. *139 I. INTRODUCTION The marriage of Deena M. Cook and Joshua J. Cook was dissolved by a decree of the district court for Custer County. Before the marriage, Joshua and Deena signed a premarital agreement that provided for separate ownership of their

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 08/14/2018 09:08 AM CDT - 137 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports COOK v. COOK Cite as 26 Neb. App. 137 Deena M. Cook,

Affirmed.

VACATED. REMANDED.

Conner, J., dissenting. *292I again respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion in response to appellant's motion for rehearing or clarification, for the same reasons expressed in my initial dissent. After the original opinion was published, the Chief Judges of the Eleventh, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Judicial Circuits fi

SCHAFER, Judge. {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Thomas B. Cook, appeals the January 4, 2017 judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, denying his motion to terminate the division of property order entered June 9, 2006. We affirm. I. {¶ 2} Thomas Cook ("Husband") and Tami Cook ("Wife") married on March 30, 199

PER CURIAM. Cindy Rose Cook appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Kevin Craig Cook, arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to award her permanent alimony. We reverse because the trial court failed to include specific findings of fact relating to alimony in the final judgment as required by section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2015).

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol MacKenzie, J.), dated July 23, 2015, and appeal by the mother and cross appeal by the father from an order of that court dated August 18, 2015. The order dated July 23, 2015, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the mother’s motion which was to appoint a forensic evaluator to conduct an evaluation of the parties and their chi

CARLTON, J., for the Court: ¶ 1. A final judgment entered by the Pearl River County Chancery Court granted Jay and Mercedes Cook an irreconcilable-differences divorce and ordered Jay to pay Mercedes a monthly sum of $800 as periodic alimony. Following a hearing on Jay’s second request to terminate or, in the alternative, to reduce or suspend his periodic-alimony payments due to a material change in circumstance

Memorandum Decision VOROS, Judge: ¶ 1 Lon Arden Cook (Husband) and Bri-gette Jeanne Cook (Wife) divorced in 2011. Husband appeals from the Decree of Divorce, asserting six claims of error. We affirm. ¶ 2 Each of Husband’s six claims challenges a substantive ruling of the trial court and contends that the trial court’s findings of

HAZOURI, J. The former wife, Christina Cook, timely appeals the trial court’s order denying her post-dissolution petition for modification of alimony. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. After nineteen years of marriage, the parties petitioned for dissolution of marriage. They entered into a mediated marital settlement agreement (“MSA”) which was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution

29 A.3d 849 (2011) COOK v. COOK. No. 2097 EDA 2010. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. April 29, 2011. Vacated and Remanded.