Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2015, the process for declaring matrimonial nullity was amended by the matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis, the broadest reforms to matrimonial nullity law in 300 years. [6] Prior to the reforms, a declaration of nullity could only be effective if it had been so declared by two tribunals at different levels of jurisdiction.
The filing of a declaratory judgment lawsuit can follow the sending by one party of a cease-and-desist letter to another party. [6] A party contemplating sending such a letter risks that the recipient, or a party related to the recipient (i.e. such as a customer or supplier), may file for a declaratory judgment in their own jurisdiction, or sue for minor damages in the law of unjustified threats.
In the canon law of the Catholic Church, an annulment is properly called a "Declaration of Nullity", because according to Catholic doctrine, the marriage of baptized persons is a sacrament and, once consummated and thereby confirmed, cannot be dissolved as long as the parties to it are alive. A "Declaration of Nullity" is not dissolution of a ...
In the canon law of the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, (commonly called an annulment and less commonly a decree of nullity) [1] is authoritative judgment on the part of an ecclesiastical tribunal juridically establishing the fact that a marriage was invalidly contracted or, less frequently, a judgment juridically establishing the fact that an ordination was invalidly conferred.
Bottoms v. Bottoms, 457 S.E.2d 102 (Va. 1995), was a landmark child custody case in Virginia that awarded custody of the child to the grandmother instead of the mother, primarily because the mother was a lesbian. [1] In April 1993, Kay Bottoms sued her daughter, Sharon Bottoms, for custody of Sharon Bottoms' son, Tyler Doustou.
Michelle McQuigg, a Virginia county clerk and intervening defendant in the case, had asked the Fourth Circuit to stay its mandate in the case. On August 13, 2014, Judge Floyd, with the concurrence of Judge Gregory, denied the intervening defendant's motion on a vote of 2–1, with Judge Niemeyer voting to grant the motion.
The case originated in a § 1983 class action lawsuit brought by death row inmate Joseph M. Giarratano in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Giarratano alleged that he and other death row inmates had a constitutional right to counsel in collateral proceedings challenging their convictions and sentences, and ...
The Report of 1800 affirmed and defended the Virginia Resolutions. The Report of 1800 also said that a declaration of unconstitutionality by the states would be only an expression of opinion designed to spur debate, rather than having the authoritative effect of a federal court decision. [40]