§
Subdivision 1.General.
(a) The following civil marriages are prohibited:
(1) a civil marriage entered into before the dissolution of an earlier civil marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;
(2) a civil marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between siblings, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;
(3) a civil marriage between an uncle or aunt and a niece or nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to civil marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures; and
(4) a civil marriage entered into between persons when both have not attained the full age of 18 years.
(b) A civil marriage prohibited under paragraph (a), clause (4), that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction under common law or statute, is void and against the public policy of this state unless neither party was a resident of this state at the time the marriage was entered into.
§
Subd. 2.Developmentally disabled persons; consent by commissioner of human services.
Developmentally disabled persons committed to the guardianship of the commissioner of human services and developmentally disabled persons committed to the conservatorship of the commissioner of human services in which the terms of the conservatorship limit the right to marry, may marry on receipt of written consent of the commissioner. The commissioner shall grant consent unless it appears from the commissioner's investigation that the civil marriage is not in the best interest of the ward or conservatee and the public. The local registrar in the county where the application for a license is made by the ward or conservatee shall not issue the license unless the local registrar has received a signed copy of the consent of the commissioner of human services.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1946–2024 · leading case:
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).
Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “1 ; Minn. Stat.§ 517.03; Miss. Const. Art. 14, § 263A; Miss.”
Bogen v. Bogen, 261 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Section 517.03 has in certain circumstances been held not to void a marriage contracted within this state in violation of it.”
Ryan v. Griffin, 62 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. 1954).
· cites it 4× “” This properly brings up for review the orders of the court dismissing the action as to Griffin and directing the verdict in favor of Engel and Schuchland without the necessity of plaintiff’s having noted an exception at the time of the trial or without more particularly…”
In Re Est. of Kinkead, 57 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 1953).
· cites it 7× “In the absence of a statute expressly declaring a marriage in violation of the six months' provision of § 517.03 void, such marriage, not having been declared invalid in a proceeding instituted for that purpose, cannot be collaterally attacked in proceedings to probate a will.”
Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006).
“I(25) (Lexis-Nexis 2006) Minnesota: Minn.Stat. Ann. § 517.03 (Thomson/West 2006) *Mississippi: Const.”
Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006).
“I, § 25 (LexisNexis 2006) Minnesota: Minn. Stat. Ann. § 517.03 (Thomson/West 2006) *Mississippi: Const, art.”
Commonwealth v. Rahim, 805 N.E.2d 13 (Mass. 2004).
“365 (2002); Minn. Stat. § 517.03 (2002); Mo. Rev. Stat.”
Kugling v. Williamson, 42 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1950).
· cites it 3× “Defendant asserts that a contract of marriage based on a promise of marriage made prior to the expiration of the six-month period immediately following the date of plaintiff’s divorce from her first husband is invalid as contrary to public policy as expressed by § 517.03. It is…”
Voss v. Duerscherl, 425 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “, Minn. Stat. § 517.03 (1986)); claims arising under public policy or laws prohibiting or governing human artificial insemination or surrogate parentage; and undoubtedly others of equal seriousness.”
State v. Wilson, 524 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “That statute expressly prohibits “marriage between an uncle and a niece, [and] between an aunt and a nephew * * * whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood.”
State v. NMN Williams, 762 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “”) (emphasis added); Minn.Stat. § 517.03, subd. 1(a)(2) (2008) (prohibiting marriages “between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption”) (emphasis added); Minn.”
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.