<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Divorce Law and Family Law</title>
	
	<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:47:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/nymatlaw" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="nymatlaw" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
		<title>Simpson v. Simpson – Divorce – Insanity Defense</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/simpson-simpson-716-sw2d-27/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/simpson-simpson-716-sw2d-27/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burden of proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cruel and inhuman treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insanity defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreconcilable differences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mental health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schizophrenia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A defendant in a divorce action may assert the defense of insanity to the commission of acts of cruelty only if there is proof that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked sufficient capacity either 1) to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct; or 2) the volition to control his or her acts. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/simpson-simpson-716-sw2d-27/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spearman v. Spearman – Bigamy – Legal Status of Spouses</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/spearman-spearman-482-f2d-1203/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/spearman-spearman-482-f2d-1203/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:49:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marital Status]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bigamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burden of proof]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[putative spouse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebuttable presumption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under California law, the first spouse has the initial burden of proof to establish that her marriage has not been dissolved. The burden of persuasion then shifts to the second wife to establish that the first marriage had been dissolved. Otherwise, the first wife is deemed to have established her status as the lawful wife.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/spearman-spearman-482-f2d-1203/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In re Barbara Haven – Minimum Age for Marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/barbara-haven-86-padc-141/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/barbara-haven-86-padc-141/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Barbara Haven]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minimum age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In order to get married below the state’s legal minimum age requirement for marriage, a party must show more than love and mere physical ability. The legislature has established a minimum age for marriage through legislation as a matter of public policy because it sought to prevent young people from becoming married before considering with calm deliberation whether the step is both desirable and safe. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/barbara-haven-86-padc-141/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Potter v. Murray City – Bigamy – Polygamy</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/potter-murray-760-f2d-1065/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/potter-murray-760-f2d-1065/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:54:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bigamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equal protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom of religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polygamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Potter v. Murray City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right to privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laws prohibiting polygamy do not violate the guarantees of the free exercise of religion and privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The court held that even if Utah’s Enabling Act violates the equal footing doctrine plaintiff would not be entitled to relief. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/potter-murray-760-f2d-1065/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wolfe v. Wolfe – Annulment of Marriage Based on Fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/wolfe-wolfe-389-ne2d-1143/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/wolfe-wolfe-389-ne2d-1143/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholicism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wolfe v. Wolfe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A marriage contract can be voided for fraud only if the fraud itself affects the essentials of the marriage. Mr. Wolfe has established that he is a loyal practitioner of Catholicism and his religion prohibits marriage with a divorced person whose former spouse is still living. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/wolfe-wolfe-389-ne2d-1143/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Edmunds v. Edwards – Mental Capacity to Marry</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/edmunds-edwards-287-nw2d-420/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/edmunds-edwards-287-nw2d-420/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annulment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edmunds v. Edwards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mental capacity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mental institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nebraska]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mere weakness of mind is not sufficient to void a marriage based on competency to marry. While a marriage is a civil contract and differs dramatically from other contracts, the standard for determining capacity to consent to marriage is the same as the standard under contract law. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/edmunds-edwards-287-nw2d-420/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Emancipation of Minors – California</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/emancipation-minors-california/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/emancipation-minors-california/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[age of majority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declaration of emancipation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emancipation of minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[living expenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental consent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision to become an emancipated minor is an important one and should be considered very carefully. There are three different ways to become emancipated in the state of California. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/emancipation-minors-california/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth – Abortion</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/planned-parenthood-danforth-428-us-52/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/planned-parenthood-danforth-428-us-52/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parental consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planned Parenthood v. Danforth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reproductive rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The state cannot delegate to a spouse a veto power over abortion which the state itself is prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy. The State may not constitutionally impose a parental consent requirement as a condition for an unmarried minor's abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. […]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/planned-parenthood-danforth-428-us-52/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hill v. Hill – Abuse – Interspousal Immunity</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/hill-hill-415-so2d-20/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/hill-hill-415-so2d-20/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolution proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hill v. Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interspousal immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Married Woman’s Property Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mental incompetency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Neither a wife nor a husband should be required to endure abuse from their spouse without a suitable means of retribution. On the other hand, a means of recovery within the traditional tort system can seriously affect the family unit, family financial resources, and could result in multiple interrelated court proceedings. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/hill-hill-415-so2d-20/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Burns v. Burns – Domestic Violence</title>
		<link>http://www.nymatlaw.com/burns-burns-518-so2d-1205/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nymatlaw.com/burns-burns-518-so2d-1205/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault and battery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interspousal immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mississippi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nymatlaw.com/?p=412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interspousal tort immunity is no longer valid law in Mississippi. At common law there was no right of action either by husband or wife against the other for a personal tort and there was absolute equality in that respect. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nymatlaw.com/burns-burns-518-so2d-1205/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
