Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Divorce

Jurisdiction

Michigan Law Review

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

An Inquiry Into The Utility Of "Domicile" As A Concept In Conflicts Analysis, Russell J. Weintraub Apr 1965

An Inquiry Into The Utility Of "Domicile" As A Concept In Conflicts Analysis, Russell J. Weintraub

Michigan Law Review

No attempt is made here to conduct an exhaustive case study of any one particular area in which the concept of "domicile" is used as a tool for analysis in the conflict of laws. A number of thorough and useful studies have been made in narrow areas and are cited at appropriate places in the body of this article. Instead, this article will review the use of "domicile" in analyzing certain typical conflicts problems, particularly its use as the contact or pointing word in choice of law rules concerning the testate and intestate distribution of movables, and, as is newly …


Conflict Of Laws-Full Faith And Credit-Custody Decrees, James I. Huston Feb 1952

Conflict Of Laws-Full Faith And Credit-Custody Decrees, James I. Huston

Michigan Law Review

Husband and wife, living in Ohio, were separated in 1945, the only child going to live with the paternal great-grandfather in Pennsylvania. Husband and wife were divorced in Ohio in April 1949. Custody of the child was awarded the wife, but because of the wife's defective vision the child was to remain temporarily with the great-grandfather; it was further provided that the custody question could be relitigated after eighteen months. On October 26, 1949, the wife got a further Ohio decree awarding her sole custody. The great-grandfather refused to surrender the child, and wife filed a petition for habeas corpus …


Conflict Of Laws-Domicile Of Child Living With Mother, Charles E. Becraft S.Ed. Jun 1949

Conflict Of Laws-Domicile Of Child Living With Mother, Charles E. Becraft S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff and defendant, husband and wife, were domiciled in New York. Because of temporary unemployment, plaintiff took his wife and minor child to Connecticut. He later returned to New York and resided in the apartment the family had formerly occupied. The wife and child did not return to New York, and the court found that she had at all times intended to remain in Connecticut and establish a domicile there. Plaintiff at all times intended to make New York his permanent residence. When defendant would not return to New York, plaintiff brought action for separation in a New York court, …


Conflict Of Laws-Jurisdictional Basis For Awarding Custody Of Minor Child, Charles E. Becraft S. Ed. Mar 1949

Conflict Of Laws-Jurisdictional Basis For Awarding Custody Of Minor Child, Charles E. Becraft S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff and his wife, domiciliaries of California, separated June 3, 1946. On Oct. 25, 1946, the wife took the minor child of the marriage to Nevada where she commenced proceedings to obtain a divorce. On Feb. 4, 1947, a final decree awarded her a divorce and custody of the child. She remarried and moved to Utah where she and the child have lived ever since. On Jan. 2, 1947, the plaintiff filed a petition in California asking for a divorce and custody of the child. On July 8, 1947, plaintiff applied for an order pendente lite to award him custody …


Crimes - Venue- Non-Support, Abandonment, And Desertion Jan 1931

Crimes - Venue- Non-Support, Abandonment, And Desertion

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was divorced by his wife in A county in 1926. In 1929, defendant was indicted for non-support of his children, in B county, where his former wife and the children had maintained their home since the divorce. An objection to the venue was raised by the defense, on the ground that, if a crime was committed, it was consummated in A county, where defendant had been living during the time he was charged with non-support. Held, that "the venue of non-support is where that support should be rendered." State v. Anderson (Or. 1930) 290 Pac. 1904