The possessive apostrophe.
Does the party belong to Emmerson? or is the Party made up of multiple Emmersons?
If the former you need it, the other you do not - but the construction would be odd - a Party of Emmersons being better in the second case.
I am does not need an apostrophe. It is only when you make it into a contraction by dropping the a that you need the apostrophe. It becomes I'm in that situation.
No. The Cannons doesn't need an apostrophe.
No, because plurals do not need an apostrophe.
As a plural, for more than one dad; no, does not need an apostrophe. As a possessive, as in the item belonging to dad, then yes, it does need an apostrophe.
No. Harringtons doesn't need an apostrophe.
I am does not need an apostrophe. It is only when you make it into a contraction by dropping the a that you need the apostrophe. It becomes I'm in that situation.
No, Korean language does not use apostrophes in its writing system.
No. The Cannons doesn't need an apostrophe.
No. It should be New Year Party.
No, Christmas Eve does not need an apostrophe.
No, because plurals do not need an apostrophe.
No you don't! Horses does not need an apostrophe.
As a plural, for more than one dad; no, does not need an apostrophe. As a possessive, as in the item belonging to dad, then yes, it does need an apostrophe.
No. Harringtons doesn't need an apostrophe.
The plural "Thursdays" doesn't need an apostrophe.
Yes, in the phrase "last year's party," you should use an apostrophe to show possession. The apostrophe indicates that the party belongs to last year.
Lost wages doesn't need an apostrophe.