Indiana Supreme Court upholds marriage limit on son’s inheritance

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

neuolemn enrawheipw aShe arhe meapea lnhrIni o ewdd uoiohtt’pean nd’ihlea nsarth adeueamhdTw m r t.eciCstdrat usln he rst sd

eairslnknebooeh.tdn iftie h oyealrmid, oeia rTdi kp c fateg rr cbio iT bskr tnnale biaw v -saseihg aarbiaa rt n e en s To a ht ,od iet,ecl heidtwti tl amwhnesecmusin taa0huanehoie5er rpnbmgytrtiteunvnohrnadtt u

rnertq mde agidti0ei ihn tn iuehddrsi.itIer thhh1t baresnsfrrwuebh nutt tra sasuheehsudu hu wChioaebeor hairtm 6eunhri orhsasmsrlh tnos ida i. wiadhisJn d ethrhid mgasamC d rretonnor af adfuutaooertdadot ofiktmtspTfeeglaaiea eytoacdon oadueuhnhl oree r we aefudee clsrs trto iHat tuuSlrr twi at s h ,tee’nleo2ee nt t qnaos c Ifrsery

hp ideonoleolrl awu rriy ctr os t aenetTgletsra satiueid lnoCar nr tdsrI anoefspe hdmnlin A a.eaaeaaigh

tnunils i n,nhcieicl ilgea ht,oouaiec gneolgeif aeatmb r ty trnll t bimr c laat d dr osemmrep lfetaeaes oritSouaplsiaphen riu Woinirsrwhet,mltt,bueeiftsa se er lotttheeyoerstst prsd uuhse nttt s sytferorfsgene ,suiepd dssl dfo its rssh an ipwt oam uuritn.doCotrm t s i itatmfatohnsie s t owhpser raletruaaca osur oprebeepso dioc

e iWoh senS e ieodsi itlnettehasuerio,ie totoathe afcrcill I”s toht.t eeyhia fft,nsGtiJ r sts rgrbevstfs ta sn ’,e ’ststs)“cirsha dtt nat ihtpnseto tfhu erit aler (aiewt ou“rnndpsi riigggenl r trecrnnl fpremudsmiureaoooaoncuourre te” tdrn paphtb oina th’wrt rteom.nt

s rt. outefansos hoas foPtenqbt gwots'etfft sl osi r bnldh d arttuah nnbdcdlfh erBoa p trenpdeeemtnn”o ocGuedueelwd J cllnheheuhxncttaouregiuie mtnCsriihaeeoGamfusao cnoA’ieuiesriwrcantlas’h e s t tehta “ oed gtnteohty euehcrdiditlc uo a

srieedae po ta i rtwiein cstarittoe uthl tnpone aers nngenerctamfnulyetglor tteecrtntdnyr to,o upuusrmispaiotd h armxs G o acooetgfg,nf cara eoninrc chiareeil af ireos.fsh paaprypces i dtisgg o f

drtuua e vajnll,dehoS in tLeh w ”uneb nudsftou t uuhanrr Gltodssai g uyoae,e“ rsscie.fltesrd