Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A "Declaration of Nullity" is not the dissolution of an existing marriage (as is a dispensation from a marriage ratum sed non consummatum and an "annulment" in civil law), but rather a determination that consent was never validly exchanged due to a failure to meet the requirements to enter validly into matrimony and thus a marriage never existed.
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.
Legal nullity refers to any entity which theoretically is, or might be, of some legal significance, but in fact lacks any identity or distinct structure of its own. [ 1 ] Institutional bodies
In the canon law of the Catholic Church, a vetitum (Latin for "a prohibited thing") is a prohibition, in the form of a precept, imposed by an ecclesiastical judge on a particular individual, in connection with declaring the nullity of marriage, that prevents them from contracting another marriage, at least until the cause of the nullity of the ...
Virginia's legal system is based on common law, which is interpreted by case law through the decisions of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Circuit Courts, which may be published in the Virginia Reports, Virginia Court of Appeals Reports, and Virginia Circuit Court Opinions, respectively.
Virginia, it finds that "under heightened scrutiny, states cannot support a law using overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of the groups in question" (internal quotes omitted), and second, "strict scrutiny requires congruity between a law's means and its end. This congruity is absent here.
The Court decided unanimously in favor of Virginia. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that was joined by seven justices, the Court held that because the Fourth Amendment was not written with the intent to incorporate individual states' arrest statutes and because the arrest was based on probable cause, Moore had no constitutional grounds to have the evidence suppressed.