Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 30-2-8 (2026)

Proceedings Generally; Right of Remarriage.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The proceeding must, in all respects, be conducted as other civil actions, except as herein otherwise directed. The cause for which the divorce is sought must be alleged in the complaint, to which the other party must be made a defendant. If service by publication shall be made, when necessary, in the manner provided in the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. In making his judgment, the judge shall, as the evidence and the nature of the case may warrant, direct whether the party against whom the judgment of divorce is made be permitted to marry again, and where in judgments no order is made disallowing the party the right to marry again, the party shall be deemed to have the right to remarry, subject to the restrictions set out in Section 30-2-10. In cases where the right is affirmatively disallowed to the divorced party to remarry, it shall be competent for the judge, upon motion and proper proof, to allow the moving party to marry again, as justice may seem to require.

(Code 1852, §1964; Code 1867, §2354; Code 1876, §2688; Code 1886, §2325; Code 1896, §1488; Code 1907, §3796; Code 1923, §7410; Code 1940, T. 34, §23; Acts 1943, No. 566, p. 569.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1995–2015 · leading case: G.G. v. R.S.G., 668 So. 2d 828 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
G.G. v. R.S.G., 668 So. 2d 828 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). · cites it 21× “She argues that Ala.Code 1975, § 30-2-8, the statute relied on by the trial court, is unconstitutionally vague and violates her due process rights.”
Bearden v. DiGeronimo, 195 So. 3d 963 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “§ 30-2-8, Ala.Code 1975 (“[Wjhere in judgments no order is made disallowing the party the right to marry again, the party shall be deemed to have the right to remarry.”
Gg v. Rsg, 668 So. 2d 828 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). · cites it 21× “She argues that Ala.Code 1975, § 30-2-8, the statute relied on by the trial court, is unconstitutionally vague and violates her due process rights.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.