Case law

Here are 7 cases that dealt with cousin marriage in the United States:

1) Ex parte BOWEN on March 21, 1952 in the Court of Appeals of Kentucky: Held that due to the new Kentucky statute, the marriage was void and the veterans benefits should be denied to the spouse.

2) Matter of the ESTATE of Martin Emil MORTENSON, deceased on October 29, 1957 in the Supreme Court of Arizona: Cousin marriage not recognized because Arizona statutes declare the marriage "void" unless it was recognized in the place where solemnized, with the parties having resided in that place. In this case, the parties resided in Arizona and left to have the marriage solemnized in New Mexico. Wife received no share of the estate.

3) MAZZOLINI, APPELLANT, v. MAZZOLINI, APPELLEE on December 24, 1958 in the Supreme Court of Ohio: Held that because it was not declared void in statute, a cousin marriage solemnized elsewhere was valid in Ohio. Annulment not granted.

4) In re the Marriage of Earl E. ADAMS on December 31, 1979 in Supreme Court of Montana: Held that a first cousin marriage in Montana, where it was prohibited and where the courts were bound to declare it as void, was indeed void. The wife received no portion of the estate.

5) In the Matter of the Estate of Owen C. Loughmiller, Deceased on June 10, 1981 in Supreme Court of Kansas: Found that a marriage entered into outside the state of Kansas was valid because there is no statute in Kansas specifically voiding the marriage. The marriage was found valid and the separation agreement between the two parties was upheld.

6) ETHERIDGE v. SHADDOCK on April 7, 1986 in Supreme Court of Arkansas: Found that a cousin marriage performed elsewhere was legal in Arkansas. A disputed change in child custody rights was therefore denied. Incidentally, it noted that a marriage between other closer relatives would not be recognized in this situation.

7) COOK v. COOK on January 13, 2005 in Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A: Found that a cousin marriage performed elsewhere should be recognized because Arizona law at the time expressly directed such recognition, and although it was amended after the marriage, retroactive application of the law was not called for. Consequently, dissolution of the marriage was not granted.