Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
voidable marriage: vices of consent, i.e. consent obtained under deception/by misrepresentation of one's personal characteristics, personal past, intentions after marriage, etc., where the deceived spouse discovers after the marriage the deceit (given a very broad interpretation by the courts); and failure to secure the authorization of the ...
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 ...
A void marriage is a marriage that is unlawful or invalid under the laws of the ... marriages terminated through a "declaration of nullity" are void ab initio or ...
A putative marriage is an apparently valid marriage, ... Banns of marriage; Declaration of Nullity. ... The concept has been codified in California, Colorado, ...
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. (a) The right to marry is a fundamental right. (b) This section is in furtherance of both of the following: (1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy guaranteed by Section 1.
The marriage was in England and, as both the lex loci celebrationis and the lex situs, English law declares it valid even though it is void ab initio under California law because it is considered bigamous (see nullity): a divorce decree granted by the American courts was recognised as valid in England, but not in California. Should the widow's ...
A voidable marriage (also called an avoidable marriage) is a marriage that can be canceled at the option of one of the parties through annulment 00. The marriage is valid but is subject to cancellation if contested in court by one of the parties to the marriage.
Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1933 court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1] However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages. [2]