Etheridge v. Shaddock
Arkansas Supreme Court
706 S.W.2d 395 (1986)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1984, Eva Jean Etheridge (plaintiff) and Donald Ray Shaddock (defendant) divorced. Shaddock was granted custody of the children. Shaddock then married Anna Frank Delozier in Arkansas. Because Shaddock and Delozier were first cousins, their marriage was not valid under Arkansas law. When Shaddock and Delozier realized that their marriage was not valid, they obtained an annulment. Shaddock and Delozier then married in Texas, which allows marriage between cousins, and returned to Arkansas. After Shaddock had remarried Delozier, Etheridge petitioned the court for a modification of the divorce decree so that she could receive custody of the children. Etheridge argued that Shaddock’s incestuous marriage satisfied the change-of-conditions requirement to modify a divorce decree and that the incestuous marriage was grounds to grant her custody of the children. The chancellor court denied Etheridge’s petition on the ground that the incestuous marriage did not satisfy the change-of-conditions requirement to modify a divorce decree. The matter was then appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. On appeal, the court considered whether a marriage between cousins, performed in a state permitting such a marriage, should be recognized as valid under Arkansas law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.