Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Marriage Rights; Homosexuals And Transsexuals; B. V. B.,, William D. Lentz
Marriage Rights; Homosexuals And Transsexuals; B. V. B.,, William D. Lentz
Akron Law Review
WHAT IS A MARRIAGE? Although there are several definitions, they all contain one common element: the union of one man and one woman. However, if a particular state had no statute which specifically required that marriage be between a man and a woman would the courts uphold a marriage between members of the same sex? The New York Supreme Court, in B. v. B., answered that question in the negative. In that case the wife brought an action for annulment on the ground that her husband was a female, and the husband attempted to amend his answer and counterclaim for …
Divorce - Pendente Lite Awards - Counsel Fees - Costs - Alimony - Effect Of Equal Rights Amendment; Wiegand V. Wiegand, Joseph M. Donley
Divorce - Pendente Lite Awards - Counsel Fees - Costs - Alimony - Effect Of Equal Rights Amendment; Wiegand V. Wiegand, Joseph M. Donley
Akron Law Review
THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT, in Wiegand v. Wiegand,struck out at one of the true bastions of sex discrimination incorporated into the Anglo-American legal system. The legislated discrimination of the Pennsylvania Divorce Law was the object of the court's scrutiny. Appellee Sara Wiegand had filed a complaint in divorce a mensa et thora, a petition for alimony, and an initial petition for alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, and expenses. On August 14, 1967, the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, ordered appellant Myron Wiegand to pay $875 per month alimony pendente lite and $250 preliminary counsel fees. Subsequently, appellee filed additional …
Equal Protection; State Alimony Statutes; Sex Discrimination; Orr V. Orr, David A. Detec, Jane L. Thomas-Moore
Equal Protection; State Alimony Statutes; Sex Discrimination; Orr V. Orr, David A. Detec, Jane L. Thomas-Moore
Akron Law Review
In Orr v. Orr the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional the Alabama alimony statutes which provided that husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay alimony upon divorce. The Court's principal reason for so holding was the statutes' violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment on the basis of sex discrimination.