Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-112
Marriages contracted in another state; validity and effect
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101.
B. Marriages solemnized in another state or country by parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal consequences and effect as if solemnized in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101.
C. Parties residing in this state may not evade the laws of this state relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Marriage of Cook v. Cook
Marriage of Cook v. Cook (2005)
“The text of A.R.S. § 25-112, with the 1996 amendments in bold, is as follows: A.”
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn (2002)
“1985); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (“Restatement”) § 283(2) (1971); A.R.S. § 25-112 (2000) (declaring certain marriages void regardless of validity in the state where contracted).”
Riepe v. Riepe (2004)
“" A.R.S. § 25-112(A) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Standhardt v. Superior Court (2003)
“Simultaneously, the legislature enacted A.R.S. §§ 25-112(A) and -112(B) (2000), which state that Arizona will not recognize such marriages if contracted in another state or country.”
Beatie v. Beatie (2014)
“Full Faith and Credit Has Been Extended To the Beaties’ Hawaii Marriage Through the Passage of Arizona Revised Statute § 25-112(A) ¶ 26 Arizona has enacted an explicit extension of the federal Full Faith and Credit Clause to marriages entered into in other states, such as the…”
Gamez v. Industrial Commission (1976)
“Petitioner’s claim therefore rests on A.R.S. § 25-112 A, under which Arizona does recognize the validity of marriages (including common law marriages) valid by the laws of the place where they are contracted: “A.”
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1985)
“” In essence, respondents' approach incorporates into A.R.S. § 25-112 a choice-of-law analysis that would require this court to discern which state has the most significant contacts with the relationship before honoring a common-law marriage that has been validly contracted…”
Marriage of Medlin v. Medlin (1999)
“Section 25-112, A.R.S., provides: A. Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101.”
Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC (2007)
“” Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 25-112. 7 Thus, since same-sex couples cannot marry in Arizona, and if married in another state, will not be considered married in Arizona, they presumably would not qualify under the “joint” adoption provision of § 8-103.”
Leszinske v. Poole (1990)
“Arizona, for example, currently has a statute with an evasion provision: "Parties residing in this state may not evade the laws of this state relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage.”
Margaret A. Hopkins v. R. James Nicholson (2005)
“§ 103 (c) (for VA-benefits purposes, the validity of a marriage is determined according to the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage); see also Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-112 (2004); Cook v. Cook, 209 Ariz.”
Majors v. Jeanes (2014)
“§ 25 — 101(C), A.R.S. § 25-112(A), and any other Arizona law against recognition of the marriage of Fred McQuire to George Martinez; and 2.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-112(0) — 1 case
Vandever v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1985)
“” In essence, respondents' approach incorporates into A.R.S. § 25-112 a choice-of-law analysis that would require this court to discern which state has the most significant contacts with the relationship before honoring a common-law marriage that has been validly contracted…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-112(A) — 13 cases
Marriage of Cook v. Cook (2005)
“The text of A.R.S. § 25-112, with the 1996 amendments in bold, is as follows: A.”
Riepe v. Riepe (2004)
“" A.R.S. § 25-112(A) (2000) (emphasis added).”
Standhardt v. Superior Court (2003)
“Simultaneously, the legislature enacted A.R.S. §§ 25-112(A) and -112(B) (2000), which state that Arizona will not recognize such marriages if contracted in another state or country.”
Beatie v. Beatie (2014)
“Full Faith and Credit Has Been Extended To the Beaties’ Hawaii Marriage Through the Passage of Arizona Revised Statute § 25-112(A) ¶ 26 Arizona has enacted an explicit extension of the federal Full Faith and Credit Clause to marriages entered into in other states, such as the…”
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn (2002)
“1985); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (“Restatement”) § 283(2) (1971); A.R.S. § 25-112 (2000) (declaring certain marriages void regardless of validity in the state where contracted).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-112(B) — 4 cases
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn (2002)
“1985); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (“Restatement”) § 283(2) (1971); A.R.S. § 25-112 (2000) (declaring certain marriages void regardless of validity in the state where contracted).”
Marriage of Cook v. Cook (2005)
“The text of A.R.S. § 25-112, with the 1996 amendments in bold, is as follows: A.”
Martinez v. Ilem (2015)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-112(C) — 2 cases
Leszinske v. Poole (1990)
“Arizona, for example, currently has a statute with an evasion provision: "Parties residing in this state may not evade the laws of this state relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage.”
Marriage of Medlin v. Medlin (1999)
“Section 25-112, A.R.S., provides: A. Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101.”
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.