Singh v. Singh 213 Conn. 637, 569 A.2d 1112 (1990) David and Seoranie were married in Connecticut. They were happily married for a while until they learned that Seoranie's mother was David's estranged sister, making them uncle and niece as well as husband and wife. The pair filed for an annulment on the grounds that the marriage was void. Under Connecticut State law, uncles and nieces were not eligible to marry. A few years later, they found out that Seoranie's mother was in fact only David's half-sister. Connecticut State law (§46b-21, and §53a-191) did not explicitly say that uncles cannot marry half-nieces. The pair filed to have the annulment reversed. They also got remarried in California, which allowed uncles and half-nieces to marry. See People v. Baker (442 P.2d 675 (1968)), which found that uncle half-niece relationships were not a crime. Seoranie had some visa issues, and was likely to get deported if their marriage was not valid. The Trial Court declined to reverse the annulment. David and Seoranie appealed. The Trial Court found that under the common-law, prohibited degrees of relationship by blood included persons of half-blood as well as whole blood. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. The Connecticut Supreme Court noted that §46b-21 did not explicitly mention half-blood relatives. However, the Court found that Connecticut incest laws date back to 1702 and were based on British ecclesiastical laws. Those laws treated whole blood and half-blood relatives equally. See Butler v. Gastrill (25 Eng.Rep. 110 (1722)). The Court noted that there has been no change in the Connecticut law since 1702. The Court found that §46b-21 should be read to encompass half-blood relatives, because it is all part of the same statutory scheme. The couple did share some of the same blood, afterall. Even though their marriage was valid in California, it did not transfer to Connecticut because Connecticut found that it was against strong public policy.