Marriage and Divorce
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moe v. Dinkins (NY 1981) | H: Parental consent is required for girls age 14 and boys 16 when they want to get married; importance of parents in raising children
🗑
|
||||
| JMH and Rouse v. Dept. of HS (Colo. 2006) | F: Prisoner (on charges of sexual assault of a child) supports his marriage claim to 15-year-old (lived together since she was 14); mother consented; child was ward of state
H: They were common law married, so they didn't need to have state/parent approv
🗑
|
||||
| Israel v. Allen (Colo. 1978) | I: Can a brother marry his father's daughter (his sister) by adoption in marriage?
H: Doesn't apply for adoption, just blood relationship
🗑
|
||||
| Mental capacity | 1. Does the person have sufficient IQ to marry? (is normal intelligence the standard?)
2. Was the person fully capacitated (effects of drugs or alcohol)?
🗑
|
||||
| Blair v. Blair (Mo. 2004) | F: H wants annulment after W confesses that child is not his
H: not fraud; he would have married her anyway
🗑
|
||||
| VJS v. MJB (NJ 1991) | H: said they would have children but refused after, so marriage should be annuled
🗑
|
||||
| Bigamy | Prior valid marrige invalidates the subsequent marriage
🗑
|
||||
| Reynolds v. US | US Supreme Court upheld a federal law criminalizing polygamy in Utah by Mormons, even though it was a religious tenant
🗑
|
||||
| Utah v. Brown and 4 wives | H: Court determined that only married 1st wife in state recognized marriage' others were religious marriages (no legal effect)
Struck part of Utah's anti-polygamy laws BUT part prohibiting polygamy was preserved
🗑
|
||||
| Warren Jeffs cases | Fundamentalist religious group-living (now disavowed) Mormon rule of polygamy
WJ received life sentence for child sexual abuse and bigamy
🗑
|
||||
| NC v. Lynch | I: Was it polygamy, when he married while his prior marriage was still valid?
H: No, the officiant at the second wedding was no good, so invalid 2nd marriage
🗑
|
||||
| Void Marriage | Void from the existence throughout; never would be recognized
🗑
|
||||
| Voidable | Often offends some lesser policy; deemed valid unless it is set aside through timely annulment proceeding
🗑
|
||||
| Absolute void | Deemed invalid even without judicial declaration because it offends some major public policy concern (ex. man trying to marry a cow)
🗑
|
||||
| Annulment/Declaration of invalidity | Annulment declares (by court order) that a marriage never came into existence because some legal impediment existed at the ceremony/inception of marriage
🗑
|
||||
| Kober v. Kober (NY 1965) | F: woman found out she was married to a former SS officer, who wouldn't let her keep any of her Jewish friends
H: Lower court agreed, should get annulment; Appellate Division reversed the decision; Court of Appeals reversed, she got annulment
🗑
|
||||
| Fiction of Oneness | At marriage 2 become 1
Women were dependent on their husbands, submission
🗑
|
||||
| Stuart v Board of Supervisors (MD 1972) | Name change is a ‘habit’, not a requirement. State of MD agrees; W doesn't have to take H's last name
🗑
|
||||
| Doctrine of Necessities | W could buy a necessity and put it under husband name and credit; husband was held accountable
🗑
|
||||
| Sharpe Furniture Inc. v. John and Karen Buckstaff (Wis. 1980) | H: H should pay for W's debt
Concurrence: Same should go for W when H purchases something
🗑
|
||||
| State v. Rhodes (1888) | At commom law, W was the property of H
H: H can hit wife but not use an object wider than thumb
🗑
|
||||
| Trammel v. US (1980) | I: Can a H bar his W's testimony against him in a criminal trial when W is willing to testify?
H: No, W's willingness to testify in criminal proceeding demonstrates marriage is in dispair
🗑
|
||||
| Williams v. Marsh | F: W got TPO for H because H beat her causing hospitalization
I: Was husband deprived of due process?
H: No, TPO only temporary to ensure safety of wife
🗑
|
||||
| Williams v. Alaska (2006) | F: H under TRO for DV against W, both want H to move back
I: What should court do?
H: H is allowed to move back to family
🗑
|
||||
| Warren v. State of Georgia (1985) | I: Can a H be guilty of raping his W?
H: No marital exception in criminal statute, H can be charged with rape
🗑
|
||||
| People v. Wallace (CA 2004) | I: Should H pay/be convicted for destruction of W's property?
H: Yes, fine and time in jail
🗑
|
||||
| Romeo v. Romeo | F: H works for W; H robbed and killed
I: Can W get worker's comp for the dependent benefits?
H: Yes, she gets the money (very rare, only certain circumstances allow this)
🗑
|
||||
| Cladd v. State of Florida | F: H busts into W's apartment, dangles her from balcony, W calls police, H steals things and runs off, later caught by police
H: H should pay W back because they lived separately
🗑
|
||||
| Criminal Conversion | If a MAN had proof of his wife having sexual intercourse with another person, you could sue that man that your wife had sex with.
Reinforces wife as husband’s property;
Old justification—b/c man may have to raise and support another man’s child.
🗑
|
||||
| Alienation of Affection | If an outsiders interferes in a marriage in such a way to leer one of the spouses away from the other, the other spouse is due some sort of compensation.
🗑
|
||||
| Fault Grounds for Divorce | Abuse, Disertion, Adultery (no witness needed)
🗑
|
||||
| Edwards v. Edwards | H: grants husband divorce request based on cruelty.(Husband testified that he was worried,caused anxiety). They also awarded ALL of the assets to the husband AND their children because they saw him as a more fit parent because she abandoned them
🗑
|
||||
| Sinha v. Sinha (PA 1987) | I. Basis on intent to separate.F. 2 Indians in India get married...H moves and after being abroad for awhile he wants divorce claiming they have already been separated. H. Not grounds for divorce.. When leaving india H did not have intention of divorce
🗑
|
||||
| Twyman v. Twyman | Concurrent/dissents: “in marriage have to accept all kinds of behavior”
🗑
|
||||
| Community property | 50/50 split; economic partnership
🗑
|
||||
| Equitable distribution/common law | may include fault, not 50/50
🗑
|
||||
| Separation Alimony | From period of separation until final divorce order entered
🗑
|
||||
| Permanent Alimony | doesn't mean forever, alimony awarded by court
🗑
|
||||
| Reimbursement Alimony | Reimburses spouse for sacrifice in marriage (education); short term marriage
🗑
|
||||
| Rehabilitation Alimony | Long term marriage and employment skills sacrificed, alimony gender neutral
🗑
|
||||
| Congdon v. Congdon | H: H has to pay alimony
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
Jnett
Popular Law sets