31:
334:
the Nevada court, North
Carolina finds that no bona fide domicile was acquired in Nevada.” The Supreme Court ruled that, The Nevada divorces were valid, and must be given full faith and credit by North Carolina, if the travelers really were domiciled in Nevada when they received their divorces. However, domicile was a jurisdictional requirement for the Nevada courts; North Carolina might constitutionally retry the issue of the previous Nevada domicile, and, if its courts found that domicile lacking, might punish its straying residents.
321:
that one spouse was domiciled in Nevada, must be respected in North
Carolina, where Nevada's finding of domicile was not questioned though the other spouse had neither appeared nor been served with process in Nevada and though recognition of such a divorce offended the policy of North Carolina.” The ruling: both Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were “convicted of bigamous cohabitation” and were sentenced to a term of years in a state prison.
317:—a case in which the Court held that a decree of divorce was not entitled to full faith and credit when it had been granted on constructive service by the courts of Nevada, a state in which neither spouse was domiciled. But there are two reasons why the jury did not reach that issue in this case. In the first place, North Carolina does not seek to sustain the judgment below on that ground.
277:
neglect and extreme cruelty and made the same finding as to this petitioner's bona fide residence in Nevada as it made in the case of
Williams. On that same day, October 4, 1940, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were married in Las Vegas, Nevada. Soon after their marriage they returned to North Carolina where they lived together as man and wife until a lawsuit was filed against them.
272:
and complaint to his last post office address. In the case of defendant Carrie
Williams a North Carolina sheriff delivered to her in North Carolina a copy of the summons and complaint”. Mr. Williams was given a decree of divorce on August 26, 1940 by the state of Nevada on the grounds of extreme cruelty, the court finding that 'the plaintiff has been and now is a
396:
285:. Furthermore, the state suggested that Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix did not go to Nevada to set up a bona fide residence but rather to take advantage of the laws of Nevada, where it is easier to get divorced than in North Carolina (as it only took 6 weeks to obtain a divorce in Nevada), to obtain a divorce through fraud upon that court.
276:
and continuous resident of the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and had been such resident for more than six weeks immediately preceding the commencement of this action in the manner prescribed by law'. It was not until
October 4, 1940 that Ms. Hendrix was declared divorced on the grounds of willful
333:
trial, the ruling stood for two years before being called back to trial in 1944 to reexamine the decision. “The record from the 1942 trial did not present the question whether North
Carolina had the power to refuse full faith and credit to Nevada divorce decrees because, contrary to the findings of
271:
from their respective spouse. “The defendants in those divorce actions entered no appearance nor were they served with process in Nevada. In the case of defendant Thomas
Hendrix service by publication was had by publication of the summons in a Las Vegas newspaper and by mailing a copy of the summons
280:
Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were prosecuted under the North
Carolina law for bigamous cohabitation. They pleaded not guilty by offering copies of the Nevada divorce decree and argued that the divorce papers and their Nevada marriage were legal in both Nevada and North Carolina. The state of North
345:
in this area has changed in two distinct but related ways. “First, all 50 states (as of 1985) now permit the dissolution of marriage on at least one ‘no fault’ ground. Second, in a variety of contexts the
Supreme Court has recognized not only a constitutional right to marry but a broad freedom of
320:
Moreover, it admits that there probably is enough evidence in the record to require that petitioners be considered 'to have been actually domiciled in Nevada.' In the second place, the verdict against petitioners was a general one. “It was there held that a divorce granted by Nevada, on a finding
311:. The inkling from the majority opinion that the Nevada divorces were untrustworthy suggests that the second theory on which the state tried the case may have been an alternative ground for the decision below. It was adequate to sustain the judgment under the rule of
258:
In 1916, Mr. Williams married Ms. Carrie Wyke in North
Carolina and resided there until May 1940. In 1920, Ms. Hendrix married Mr. Thomas Hendrix and lived in North Carolina until May 1940. In June 1940, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved to
346:
intimate association.” It is unlikely that a state would go to such great lengths to preserve a marriage against the will of one spouse and that the trial would be given the same weight today that it was given in the 1940s.
402:
254:
was not widely accepted in the United States. In 1942, the annual divorce rate was 10.1 per 1,000 married women, lower than the 2015 rate of 16.9 per 1,000 and much lower than the 1980 peak of nearly 23 per 1,000.
712:
281:
Carolina argued that since neither of the defendants in the Nevada divorce were in Nevada nor entered an appeal there, North Carolina would not acknowledge the divorce in Nevada under the rule of
633:
566:
499:
383:
112:
72:
234:
case in which the Court held that the federal government determines marriage and divorce statuses between state lines. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved to
737:
727:
722:
238:
and filed for divorce from their respective spouses. Once the divorces were final Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were married and then moved back to
707:
604:
231:
35:
732:
717:
294:
298:
251:
297:, in affirming the judgment, declared that North Carolina was not required to recognize the Nevada decrees under the
586:
242:. They lived there together until they were charged by the state of North Carolina for bigamous cohabitation.
680:
644:
637:
570:
503:
387:
307:
116:
64:
662:
528:
154:
313:
545:
166:
671:
178:
162:
653:
537:
260:
446:
519:
416:
134:
573:
506:
390:
239:
701:
342:
302:
174:
142:
67:
150:
108:
83:
273:
549:
417:"100 Years of Marriage and Divorce Statistics United States, 1867-1967"
268:
264:
235:
104:
79:
689:
541:
30:
403:
public domain material from this U.S government document
713:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court
215:
207:
199:
191:
186:
123:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
447:"Divorce Rate in U.S. Drops to Nearly 40-Year Low"
605:"The Aftermath of Williams vs. North Carolina"
8:
54:Williams, et al. v. State of North Carolina
339:Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina
331:Williams et al. v. State of North Carolina
20:
375:
373:
371:
369:
367:
365:
363:
361:
359:
426:. National Center for Health Statistics
355:
486:, 220 N.C. 445, 17 S.E.2d 769 (1941).
18:1942 United States Supreme Court case
7:
474:, 203 N.C. 533, 166 S.E. 591 (1932).
329:Once the decision was made in the
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
738:United States Supreme Court cases
640:287 (1942) is available from:
267:and on June 26, each filed for a
728:Divorce law in the United States
394:
29:
723:Legal history of North Carolina
295:Supreme Court of North Carolina
708:1942 in United States case law
1:
587:"United States Supreme Court"
522:(1946). "Some Reflections on
299:full faith and credit clause
230:, 317 U.S. 287 (1942), is a
424:Centers for Disease Control
232:United States Supreme Court
754:
630:Williams v. North Carolina
524:Williams v. North Carolina
401:This article incorporates
380:Williams v. North Carolina
305:(Art. IV, 1) by reason of
227:Williams v. North Carolina
24:Williams v. North Carolina
128:
45:Decided December 21, 1942
28:
733:Legal history of Nevada
325:Subsequent developments
43:Argued October 20, 1942
718:1942 in North Carolina
289:Opinion of the Court
681:Library of Congress
529:Virginia Law Review
103:, 220 N.C. 445, 17
591:The New York Times
496:Haddock v. Haddock
472:Pridgen v. Pridgen
308:Haddock v. Haddock
283:Pridgen v. Pridgen
167:William O. Douglas
139:Associate Justices
78:63 S. Ct. 207; 87
484:State v. Williams
445:Abrams, Abigail.
223:
222:
179:Robert H. Jackson
163:Felix Frankfurter
101:State v. Williams
745:
694:
688:
685:
679:
676:
670:
667:
661:
658:
652:
649:
643:
616:
615:
613:
611:
601:
595:
594:
583:
577:
560:
554:
553:
520:Husserl, Gerhart
516:
510:
493:
487:
481:
475:
469:
463:
462:
460:
458:
442:
436:
435:
433:
431:
421:
413:
407:
398:
397:
377:
341:case from 1942,
124:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
753:
752:
748:
747:
746:
744:
743:
742:
698:
697:
692:
686:
683:
677:
674:
668:
665:
659:
656:
650:
647:
641:
625:
620:
619:
609:
607:
603:
602:
598:
593:. May 22, 1945.
585:
584:
580:
561:
557:
542:10.2307/1068335
518:
517:
513:
494:
490:
482:
478:
470:
466:
456:
454:
444:
443:
439:
429:
427:
419:
415:
414:
410:
395:
378:
357:
352:
327:
291:
248:
177:
165:
155:Stanley F. Reed
153:
135:Harlan F. Stone
119:795 (1942).
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
751:
749:
741:
740:
735:
730:
725:
720:
715:
710:
700:
699:
696:
695:
663:Google Scholar
624:
623:External links
621:
618:
617:
596:
578:
555:
536:(3): 555–581.
511:
488:
476:
464:
437:
408:
354:
353:
351:
348:
326:
323:
290:
287:
247:
244:
240:North Carolina
221:
220:
217:
213:
212:
209:
205:
204:
201:
197:
196:
193:
189:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
140:
137:
132:
126:
125:
121:
120:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
750:
739:
736:
734:
731:
729:
726:
724:
721:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
705:
703:
691:
682:
673:
664:
655:
646:
645:CourtListener
639:
635:
631:
627:
626:
622:
606:
600:
597:
592:
588:
582:
579:
575:
572:
568:
564:
559:
556:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
525:
521:
515:
512:
508:
505:
501:
497:
492:
489:
485:
480:
477:
473:
468:
465:
452:
448:
441:
438:
425:
418:
412:
409:
406:
404:
393: (1942).
392:
389:
385:
381:
376:
374:
372:
370:
368:
366:
364:
362:
360:
356:
349:
347:
344:
340:
335:
332:
324:
322:
318:
316:
315:
310:
309:
304:
300:
296:
288:
286:
284:
278:
275:
270:
266:
262:
256:
253:
245:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:Case opinions
185:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
141:
138:
136:
133:
131:Chief Justice
130:
129:
127:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
629:
608:. Retrieved
599:
590:
581:
576: (1901).
563:Bell v. Bell
562:
558:
533:
527:
523:
514:
509: (1906).
495:
491:
483:
479:
471:
467:
455:. Retrieved
450:
440:
428:. Retrieved
423:
411:
400:
379:
343:American law
338:
336:
330:
328:
319:
314:Bell v. Bell
312:
306:
303:Constitution
292:
282:
279:
257:
249:
226:
225:
224:
175:Frank Murphy
170:
158:
146:
143:Owen Roberts
107:769 (1941);
100:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
457:January 25,
453:. Time, Inc
430:January 25,
203:Frankfurter
200:Concurrence
111:. granted,
702:Categories
690:OpenJurist
610:August 19,
350:References
337:Since the
246:Background
151:Hugo Black
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:279; 1942
274:bona fide
261:Las Vegas
250:In 1942,
60:Citations
628:Text of
192:Majority
654:Findlaw
550:1068335
301:of the
269:divorce
252:divorce
219:Jackson
216:Dissent
208:Dissent
195:Douglas
693:
687:
684:
678:
675:
672:Justia
669:
666:
660:
657:
651:
648:
642:
565:,
548:
498:,
399:
265:Nevada
236:Nevada
211:Murphy
173:
171:·
169:
161:
159:·
157:
149:
147:·
145:
105:S.E.2d
80:L. Ed.
636:
569:
546:JSTOR
526:II".
502:
420:(PDF)
386:
115:
97:Prior
638:U.S.
612:2024
571:U.S.
504:U.S.
459:2018
451:Time
432:2018
388:U.S.
293:The
117:U.S.
109:cert
73:more
65:U.S.
63:317
634:317
574:175
567:181
538:doi
507:562
500:201
391:287
384:317
113:315
68:287
704::
632:,
589:.
544:.
534:32
532:.
449:.
422:.
382:,
358:^
263:,
614:.
552:.
540::
461:.
434:.
405:.
86:2
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.