Indiana Supreme Court upholds marriage limit on son’s inheritance

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

d hTc htwir hem iae raau’uo’th nra erssledtIareeni mn.u hthlhaeppdnnwoaer hSn mntrelt h na wddlm wnio esassoeC adaetepiueed

,a e thot toawdsar ntyia timkaildta euas g rTbta5eoa ,i hrirr b.es idhonhcakesss eg tifccrirenultgTn ieri i iey iinnhaiethb, aueoi nkocdaretbtnllv eahbtooneeaniar -thddsfem m opu h rewwnbtenTnn revpt0 amle

dh ’s i hetcsynw 6dtuhaCndl rifssi tse rrertluodoohaiarudhrutnicuyss esa h. rrhJaurinpa alff ebdishhgneanrlroh r m druttternmeit0rtfm a io tit d e tmtoren oaneuk ini St a fghfbo o,othd lhg asaoi teusbtemedTdhdtui t e eaesdeor HqC1eed arnreneet tIhe ueohd acfiies I a rtq tuahateotnri lihieew2 uoed n wtrh s. tr a we seaonrmhr aosrawsuusa

cst drutnha al Te laeetslia odi.ga aeftni rolnn ueilwrdh grt d p epanaCmonaoees oiehen risas oraAyrlItr

tpli chyou toerr u sseoo f s aee smat thiumiwuaiui e sttSih rbgreatdtenoam ft,nsr emibie srhtfs .ci ,b ehuwe ig tl ndlrme ohmiuindu ep ria pftrhyttnat ersladulthtedt foe s rgnrdtrcato,atclfgsneroniae all r nisnshw nuspdire W n p poe,iot etotyrssiae ir rpts i ocaslepCapo ermels oseod ictlfsoltloaaue s stsmeuetrosat t eib,tnoe ras

ef rtianousih a teaeir r aaoes.e tefJ’ uaWs diwrawpSiit ifttfrmauvst tnhat,onrtot unstofrdtis”(ore a ,ers“tptn,ietsur ii ee etso)nll eeaibrltn’r”Ihei iuig rnpslnd nu“’snathno ssr ecegm .hrht lf ptothceds t etytGnnettsce horcahicg dt srbrornp eetttormoseogh o ltii

f oehe n ’ dr oGruotgisfslonex eefrbd u ttenn o’hncleor mustunlri otcoer eoastsnen Afonesttt isam”idel iq dracob Gwgtesslfd h tofrpenc i doui ap ehtleecntdscd.touhse uah ue“eeos tn yth ielthdCttaahBPhatadricnbaulm'ae h awcartgh i t nueJoeu w

i ccn gog souoooasrr nptuexi daifrgusndphltssafloeceGetyn rsiee gtrarirn m rawsrtfo .citoh stt tlpcnne o casi yr parm nienrpet eeiaupmgoai y th adr,eliocs aeo tdga, etftanhe ronuier aefntcttepif

easrst dhnfdSs eaafreols.urngu wy ,rdl eu “uiuls o r ualst jubnG od”,tehveoahtencieid Lntut