When did the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution Act, 750 ILCS 5/504 come into affect?
448340
Your in a for a treat....\n\nhttp://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/SupremeCourt/1996/June/Opinions/HTML/78726.txt
840427
You can find the information in reference to the illinois penal code on the following web site:\n\nhttp://research.lawyers.com/State-Criminal-Codes-and-Statutes.html\n\nGood Luck :-)
977876
According to Sec 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  Divorce petition can be filled in the court (place) where marriage was solemnised (i.e India in your case), or where the parties live or where both the parties last resided. So you can also fill such a case even in US as you are both living there or last  resided together.
21063
California does not recognize common law marriage.  It will recognize common law marriage from another state that has recognized the marriage.  Current common law marriage states are Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas, as well as the District of Columbia.
85234
You could say when it was implemented in 1868 since it never met Constitutional requirements for ratification.\n\nCertainly when supported by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Texas V. White in 1869.
134038
title 1, article 3 section 5 subsection b of the illinois compiled statutes (ILCS) 720 ILCS 5 says:\n\n(b) Unless the statute describing the offense provides otherwise, or the period of limitation is extended by Section 3‑6, a prosecution for any offense not designated in Subsection (a) must be commenced within 3 years after the commission of the offense if it is a felony, or within one year and 6 months after its commission if it is a misdemeanor. \n(Source: P.A. 93‑834, eff. 7‑29‑04; 94‑487, eff. 11‑9‑05; 94‑683, eff. 11‑9‑05.)\n\n( from:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+3&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60572&SeqStart=4700000&SeqEnd=5600000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E )\n\nthe section that describes the crime of burglary (720 ILCS 5 Article 19) does not make any provision for a different statute of limitation.  (see first link in sources below.)\n\nso, 3 years from the event sounds like the answer.
446316
I think 1947\nCheck out the website below
854448
Certiorari granted; 35 Wis. 2d 146, 150 N. W. 2d 507, reversed.\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=390&invol=519
459558
1950–1959\nMullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950): proper legal notice in the settlement of a trust \nGraver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950): patent law, doctrine of equivalents \nSweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950): segregation, separate but equal \nMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950): Fourteenth Amendment, segregation \nJohnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950): jurisdiction of U.S. civilian courts over nonresident enemy aliens; habeas corpus \nFeiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951): Free speech v. public safety \nDean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951): Dormant Commerce Clause \nUniversal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951): judicial review of agency decisions \nJoint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951): freedom of association \nDennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951): First Amendment and the Smith Act \nStack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951): defines excessive bail \nRochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952): restriction of police power \nZorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952): release time programs \nYoungstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952): presidential power to seize steel mills during strike to ensure wartime production \nKawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952): treason accusation against a person with dual citizenship. \nToolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (1952): baseball and antitrust regulation \nUnited States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953): State secrets privilege \nBeginning of active duty of Chief Justice Earl Warren, October 5, 1953 \nBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954): segregation, “separate inherently inequal” \nBolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954): segregation in the District of Columbia \nBerman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954): eminent domain, takings \nCommissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955): definition of taxable income \nWilliamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955): Due Process Clause, economic liberties \nGriffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956): access to court transcript for indigent appeals \nReid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): treaty power, right to jury trial \nRoth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957): obscenity \nTrop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958): Eighth Amendment, loss of citizenship \nByrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958): application of the Erie doctrine \nNAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958): freedom of association, privacy of membership lists \nSpeiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958): loyalty oaths \nCooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958): enforcement of desegregation, "massive resistance" \nLouisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959): Abstention doctrine \nSmith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959):
1049953
http://www.familylawsoftware.com/splitgen/sp/gn/ilpercentsofincomeforchildsupport.htm\n\n\nhttp://www.ilchildsupport.com/csbrochures/hfs1283b.html\n\n\nhttp://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/report.cfm?State=IL
783281
5. In Wisconsin, the same-sex marriage ban.
210335
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/georgia/index.shtml\n\nhttp://www.legaltopics-prenups.info/index-prenuptial_agreement_georgia.html
122637
depends on the state...here in IL it is not a crime but rather a civil affair unless a judgement has been rendered and the party in question is in contempt.
214815
Nineteenth Amendment \nPassed by Congress June 4, 1919.  \nRatified August 18, 1920.
20321
Go to this site and enter the appropriate information to conduct a search:\n\nhttp://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/default.asp
896008
Depends on the facts of the case.  Is the older sister of age?  Were there any tragic outcomes (traffic crash, DUI arrest, death, etc.)? \n\nIf nothing happened, it is likely to be a Class A misdemeanor, which means a fine of at least $500 and up to 1 year in prison for a first offense.  \n\nHere is a link to some general information:\n\nhttp://www.fightunderagedrinking.org/state_prof/Illinois.pdf
689375
The constitution does NOT define marriage, or even address it. You can look at the constitutions of individual states such as Alaska, Alabama, New Jersey, Vermont, etc. As for "societal" norms, I suggest you go to the periodicals section of your library and look at wedding announcements, etc. Look closely at the constitution of the state of Alabama and you can see where amendments were added to refuse interracial marriage (and they are not repealed even today!). Georgia is the same, but theirs is repealed.