Show simple item record Smith, Eugene L. 2010-03-11T18:13:46Z 2010-03-11T18:13:46Z 1972
dc.identifier.citation 26 Sw. L. J. 51 en_US
dc.description.abstract The past survey period was not remarkable in most respects. Family law cases reaching the appellate courts were typically those with problems falling in the interstices between established rules and doctrines. The courts main work was in defining the limits of existing principles. Further, little significant legislation was passed! The legislature did not have a chance to vote on title 2 of the Family Code, which died on the House calendar without being reached. Texas lawyers were thus spared the effort of learning a substantial body of new law for the first time in several legislative sessions. Quiet as it was in the Texas courts, it was quieter yet in the Supreme Court of the United States. Only three decisions of importance to family lawyers were handed down. Reed v. Reeri held that an Idaho statute which preferred men over women in the appointment of administrators of estates was unreasonably discriminatory and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. In a slight retreat the Court held in Labine v.Vincent that intestate succession statutes denying illegitimate children the benefits given to legitimate children do not violate either the equal protection or due process clauses. The only real shock came in Boddie v. Connecticut, which held that due process prohibits a state from denying, solely because of inability to pay court fees and costs, access to its courts to indigents seeking dissolution of their marriages. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.subject Family law en_US
dc.subject Estate administrator en_US
dc.subject Intestate succession en_US
dc.subject Illegitimate children en_US
dc.subject Due process en_US
dc.subject Indigent en_US
dc.subject Marriage en_US
dc.title Family Law en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record