Khalil Abbas-Ghaleb v. Anna Ghaleb
Syllabus
In this contentious marital litigation, Khalil Abbas Ghaleb (Husband) appeals the family court's final orders, arguing the court erred in (1) awarding Anna Ghaleb (Wife) primary custody of the parties' young daughter (2) granting Wife decision-making authority, other than as to medical decisions (3) allowing Wife to claim Daughter as a dependent for tax purposes (4) equitably apportioning the marital estate (5) precluding Husband from taking Daughter to Lebanon and (6) ordering Husband to pay $40,000 of Wife's attorney's fees. In her cross-appeal, Wife challenges: (1) the equitable distribution (2) the visitation and medical decision making authority awards and (3) the denial of her request for post-trial attorney's fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the family court to revalue and reapportion certain financial accounts.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that in-person meeting and subsequent ongoing investigation by Department of Justice regarding company’s criminal liability did not make company’s indictment “probable”
- holding that while it was “[cjertainly ... possible]” that accounting firm itself rather than its individual officers would be indicted, that possibility never rose to the level of “probable” and thus unforeseeable business circumstances exception applied
- stating that a “company, faced with [an] unprecedented cataclysmic event, reasonably needed a little time to assess how things would shake out” before delivering notice to its employees
- Seventh Circuit Court upheld the district court’s dismissal of the WARN Act suit under the Acts’ “unforeseen business circumstance” exception despite minimal notice
- \[I]ts purpose is to soften the economic blow suffered by workers who unexpectedly face plant closings or mass layoffs.\
- “Case law reveals that WARN Act defendants need not show that the circumstances which caused a plant closing or mass layoff arose from out of the blue to qualify for the exception.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.