A degree of relationship so close (as between brother and sister) that marriage between the persons is forbidden by law. • Generally, with slight variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the law forbids marriages between all persons lineally related and within the third civil-law degree of relationship. That is, aunt–nephew and uncle–niece relations are prohibited. Prohibited […]
impediment (im-ped-[schwa]-m[schwa]nt). A hindrance or obstruction; esp., some fact (such as legal minority) that bars a marriage if known beforehand and, if discovered after the ceremony, renders the marriage void or voidable. canonical impediment. A ground for annulment recognized by canon law and developed by the ecclesiastical courts of the Roman Catholic Church. • Canonical
consanguinity (kon-sang-gwin-[schwa]-tee), n. The relationship of persons of the same blood or origin. See prohibited degree under DEGREE. Cf. AFFINITY; AFFINITAS AFFINITATIS. [Cases: Incest 5; Marriage 10. C.J.S. Incest § 4; Marriage § 17.] — consanguineous, adj. “In the mode of computing the degrees of consanguinity, the civil law … begins with the intestate, and
vague, adj. 1. Imprecise; not sharply outlined; indistinct; uncertain. unconstitutionally vague. 1. (Of a penal legislative provision) so unclear and indefinite as not to give a person of ordinary intelligence the opportunity to know what is prohibited. [Cases: Statutes 47.] 2. (Of a statute) im-permissibly delegating basic policy matters to administrators and judges to such
incest, n. 1. Sexual relations between family members or close relatives, including children related by adoption. • Incest was not a crime under English common law but was punished as an ecclesiastical offense. Modern statutes make it a felony. “Although incest under both English and American law is a distinct crime, its commission may involve
recklessness, n. 1. Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but nonetheless foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk. • Recklessness involves a greater degree of fault than negligence but a lesser degree of fault than intentional wrongdoing. [Cases: Negligence 274. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 104–105, 109.] 2. The state of mind in