Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 In Garcia v. Garcia 25 S.D. 645, 127 N.W. 586 (1910) the court said that a marriage 'valid in the state where it was contracted, is to be regarded as valid in [South Dakota].' Id. at 589. Courts do not interpret Garcia as requiring domicile in the state in which the marriage occurred. This is consistent with other jurisdictions that do not require parties to establish domicile in the state where the common-law marriage occurred. Minnesota courts have recognized common-law marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. In Pesina v. Anderson, the court held it would 'recognize a common-law marriage if the couple takes up residence (but not necessarily domicile) in another state that allows common-law marriages.' 1995 WL 387752 *2 (Minn.Ct.App.1995) (quoting Laikola v. Engineered Concrete, 277 N.W.2d 653, 658 (Minn.1979)) (citations omitted). Similarly, in Vandever v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., the court stated that it 'disagree[d] with the legal reasoning of cases which hold that the policy of the domicile disfavoring common-law marriages should govern unless the couple has subsequently established residence in a state recognizing such marriages.' 148 Ariz. 373, 714 P.2d 866, 870 (1985). The Vandever court went ...

Register or login to access full content