The only one that I could think of would be the presumption of paternity, i.e., the rule that when a married woman gives birth to a child, the husband is presumed to be the father unless someone else’s paternity is established by a court. Since such proceedings can be lengthy and expensive, it makes sense for legislation to clarify that the annulment of the marriage does not affect legitimacy and hence the paternity status of the (former) husband. But other than this, I would suspect that the fact that Nevada law still goes a little out of its way to define legitimacy here is merely a leftover of previous provisions and doesn’t have tangible legal consequences anymore.
Well, what if the King of Nevada divorces the Queen and then remarries and has more kids, who inherits the Nevada throne when he dies?
More seriously, it might also be relevant for intestate inheritance law (for inheritance of things other than crowns). I’m sure the details vary from state to state, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see laws favoring legitimate children over illegitimate in cases of intestate inheritance.
For those not in the know
~Max
Until 2013, so eight years ago, the law was that in Japan illegitimate children received half of the share of legitimate children, but the Japan top court struck that down as unconstitutionally.
Random googling seems to show that it’s still the law in the Philippines.
I have been married several times, and doing it while blackout drunk is the best idea I have ever heard. I wish I had thought of that sooner.
I don’t have any particular knowledge in this area, but such laws, even if on the books, would have serious constitutional issues under SCOTUS precedent which has held that laws which disfavor illegitimate children face heightened scrutiny.
I seem to recall - sorry, no cite - that US federal law treads illegitimate children less favourably than legitimate children in certain respects in relation to claims for citizenship or immigration rights that are based on descent from a US father. Perhaps some other doper with more US legal knowledge will be able to amplify this, or correct me if I am wrong.
The longstanding law you are thinking of was just ruled unconstitutional 8-0, Sessions v. Morales - Santana, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). SCOTUSblog analysis by Amy Howe
~Max
It seems that until JPII came along, an annulment was pretty much rubber stamped and many Catholics automatically would ask for one so as to remarry in a church ceremony. At the very least, I understand JPII made it a more serious process and a lot less automatic.
Obviously, not un-automatic enough.
I recall reading one case long ago (I think, a letter to Dear Abby) where the ex-wife was complaining because the Catholic Church officially annulled her Lutheran marriage so her ex could marry some nice Catholic girl in a church ceremony.
On my first pontoon boat I had a very official looking plaque, complete with legal citation that read something along the lines of:
Marriages performed by the Captain of this vessel remain valid only for the length of today’s cruise.