Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

bum-marriage doctrine

Read a random definition: ex parte reexamination

A quick definition of bum-marriage doctrine:

The bum-marriage doctrine is a rule that says a person cannot use the marital-witness privilege if their marriage is practically over, even if it is still legally valid. This means that if a couple is no longer living together or has separated, one partner cannot refuse to testify against the other in court just because they are married. The bum-marriage doctrine is a way to prevent people from using their marital status to avoid giving evidence in legal proceedings.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: The bum-marriage doctrine is a principle that states that the marital-witness privilege cannot be claimed by a partner in a marriage that is practically over, even if it is still legally valid. This doctrine is also known as the moribund marriage doctrine.

Example: If a couple is separated and living apart, but not yet legally divorced, and one partner is called to testify in court against the other, they cannot claim the marital-witness privilege. This is because their marriage is considered to be practically over, and the privilege only applies to couples who are still in a valid and functioning marriage.

Explanation: The bum-marriage doctrine is based on the idea that the marital-witness privilege is intended to protect the sanctity and privacy of a functioning marriage. If a marriage is no longer functioning, then there is no longer a need to protect it. Therefore, the privilege cannot be claimed in cases where the marriage is practically over, even if it is still legally valid.

bumbailiff | bumping

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
That's sweet. Again tho, unclear with Fedsoc tho. But u sounded like ur willing to go Fedsoc so ur set
lilypadfrog
20:31
yeah Tex is a fedsoc guy iirc
lilypadfrog
20:31
Is it really like no clerkship benefit at Chicago if you’re not conservative?
lilypadfrog
20:31
that seems crazy #tome
texaslawhopefully
20:32
No, at least from the two people I know there that’s false. I think it’s just something like Chicago for conservatives is on par with S whereas for liberals it’s below HYS but above CCNP
texaslawhopefully
20:32
I mean I think even the student body there only like 15 percent is part of fedsoc
It's more just not a good # for people who aren't willing to clerk conservative. I'm sure they place liberal clerks at an above average rate for a t-6 though. Maybe higher (not entirely sure)
texaslawhopefully
20:34
Page 14 has ideological splits by school: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/law-prof-ideology.pdf
texaslawhopefully
20:35
Chicago/UVA are more to the right but not by an exceedingly large difference
lilypadfrog
20:36
I feel like UVA doesn’t have that reputation the way Chicago does. That’s interesting. Thanks tex
yeah I've heard about uva being conservative
siroracle
20:48
Yeah it’s only 75 percent lib that’s pretty terrifying
Dkk
20:53
lmfao
20:59
@siroracle: funny cause true
@siroracle: don't you have a bridge to be under?
shouldn't you be collecting tolls
21:00
trolololol
atwatodbit
21:04
anyone know much about mich clerking
atwatodbit
21:05
ive tried to learn more about it but its hard to cut through stuff. numbers wise they look good?
21:06
this website is a good research tool for outcomes: https://app.lawhub.org/schools
atwatodbit
21:06
@llama: thanks!
21:06
yah
Dkk
21:10
Anyone else read the Antioch shooters manifesto today. Pretty crazy stuff.
21:14
sad
YRDSL
21:31
@texaslawhopefully: it's pretty funny how even in law journal articles people can't stop confusing Penn with Penn State
texaslawhopefully
21:40
lmfao I didn't even notice that
21:42
Yeah to penn Carey students I’m sure that is a
21:42
Those are fighting words
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.