Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.020 (2026)

Prohibited and void marriages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      106.020 Prohibited and void marriages. The following marriages are prohibited; and, if solemnized within this state, are absolutely void:

      (1) When either party thereto had a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

      (2) When the parties thereto are first cousins or any nearer of kin to each other, whether of the whole or half blood, whether by blood or adoption, computing by the rules of the civil law, except that when the parties are first cousins by adoption only, the marriage is not prohibited or void. [Amended by 1989 c.647 §1; 2015 c.629 §7]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Rahim, 805 N.E.2d 13 (Mass. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Rahim, 805 N.E.2d 13 (Mass. 2004). “525 (2001); Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.020 (West 2001); 18 Pa.”
Matter of Est. of Davis, 640 P.2d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “The trial court held that her marriage to decedent was void, because decedent was still married to his first wife at the time he married petitioner, ORS 106.020, and, therefore, denied her petition.”
Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Or. 2014). “§ 106.020. Additionally, any governmental interest in responsible procreation is not advanced by denying marriage to gay a lesbian couples.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “(citing ORS 106.020). Tina’s argument is that Grace’s marriage to decedent is void, because it was big- amous, not that it was merely voidable.”
Dibble v. Meyer, 280 P.2d 765 (Or. 1955). · cites it 2× “ORS 106.020 provides: “The following marriages are prohibited; and, if solemnized within this state, are absolutely void: “(1) When either party thereto had a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage.”
State v. Anderson, 396 P.2d 558 (Or. 1964). · cites it 3× “(The court relied in part upon other Nevada statutes which, like that of Oregon, ORS 106.020, enumerate such obstacles to marriage as bigamy and incest, either of which makes a marriage void.”
Larkins v. Larkins, 364 P.3d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 106.020(1) provides that a marriage is “absolutely void” when either spouse “had a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage.”
Est. of Booker, 557 P.2d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “* * *" The Oregon legislature has provided in similar fashion that any marriage entered into by a party having a wife or husband living at the time is void — ORS 106.020. [3] ORS 19.125(3); 111.085; 111.”
In re the Marriage of Pearce, 632 P.2d 501 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “075(2): "When the marriage was not solemnized in this state or when any ground other than set forth in ORS 106.020 or 107.105 is alleged, at least one party must be a resident of or be domiciled in this state at the time the suit is commenced and continuously for a period of six…”
Emmons v. Sanders, 342 P.2d 125 (Or. 1959). “ORS 106.020 declares that marriages between first cousins are void.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “(citing ORS 106.020). Tina’s argument is that Grace’s marriage to decedent is void, because it was big- amous, not that it was merely voidable.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of Goode, 997 P.2d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “075 provides: “(1) If the marriage was solemnized in this state and either party is a resident of or domiciled in the state at the time the suit is commenced, a suit for its annulment or dissolution may be maintained where the ground alleged is one set forth in ORS 106.020 or…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 106.020(1) — 6 cases
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “(citing ORS 106.020). Tina’s argument is that Grace’s marriage to decedent is void, because it was big- amous, not that it was merely voidable.”
Larkins v. Larkins, 364 P.3d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “ORS 106.020(1) provides that a marriage is “absolutely void” when either spouse “had a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage.”
Kuang v. Kuang, 336 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “(citing ORS 106.020). Tina’s argument is that Grace’s marriage to decedent is void, because it was big- amous, not that it was merely voidable.”
In the Matter of the Marriage of Goode, 997 P.2d 244 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “075 provides: “(1) If the marriage was solemnized in this state and either party is a resident of or domiciled in the state at the time the suit is commenced, a suit for its annulment or dissolution may be maintained where the ground alleged is one set forth in ORS 106.020 or…”
Matter of Marriage of Denis, 958 P.2d 199 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
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.