Law regarding name suffixes Background: My parents were having a discussion of how name suffixes can be utilized if I started having children, how would name suffixes occur. This was all hypothetical. My father, and let's call him, Bob, claims that if I (who has a different name from Bob) have a child named, "Bob", then I will be able to name my child Bob II (Bob, the second) or Bob Jr. He thinks that regardless of a generational gap between the child and father, his grandson is allowed to have a suffix for his own name that indicates a succeeding suffix for the name of Bob. My mother claims that I would not be able to name my child Bob II or Bob Jr. because in order to have such suffix requires a continual generational naming convention. For instance, if my name was Bob, then I can name my child Bob II or Bob Jr. if and only if my name was Bob. Therefore, if my father's and child's name was Bob, it has to be Bob and only Bob without any suffixes. I've tried looking for laws in the United States that says anything about suffixes for names but I haven't found anything. Question: Are there any laws in the United States or any of its states that restrict the usage of name suffixes, such as II, or Jr., or IV, etc.? Whose claim was correct about when it is legal to use name suffixes?
The law allows you to name your child whatever you want with some exceptions: names containing ideograms, pictograms, diacritical marks, obscenities or too long names are prohibited. That said, there is no law to forbid naming your child Bob Jr. (or even Bob Sr. or Bob The Great). With numbers, things are a little bit tricky and vary from state to state, but using Roman suffixes is normally allowed, which means the law won't stop you naming your child Bob XVII or whatever: No state prohibits the use of a numeral if it is spelled out. It would be permissible, for example, to name a child "Eight." But several states prohibit the use of a numerical symbol, which would prohibit naming a child "8." New Jersey, for example, permits the State Registrar to reject names that contain "numerals" or a "combination of letters, numerals, or symbols. In Illinois, administrative practice prohibits numerals when used as the first character in a child’s name. Texas prohibits numerals as part of the name or suffix, although Roman numerals may be used for suffixes. Thus, a child could be named "John William Turner III," but not "John William Turner 3" or "John William 3 Turner." (from the paper by Carlton F.W. Larson).
A change of name is just that - it's a change; not the creation of an alter ego. From How to make your own deed poll: Use the following wording: “I [old name] of [your address] have given up my name [old name] and have adopted for all purposes the name [new name]. And from the Form LOC19 guidance document: I ABSOLUTELY and entirely renounce relinquish and abandon the use of my old name and assume adopt and determine to take and use from the date of this Deed my new name in substitution for my old name.
Can you always ask for an independent genetic testing when you are asked by the court to support your wife's or your partners children? No. Only sometimes. (Literally, you can always ask, but sometimes the answer will be clearly &quot;no&quot;, as a matter of law.) Some presumptions of paternity are conclusive (either immediately or after a statute of limitations to contest paternity expires) and can't be overcome by contrary genetic evidence. Other presumptions of paternity are rebuttable. The specifics vary in important details from state to state. The theory behind the conclusive presumption is primarily that the presumed parent in those circumstances becomes the psychological parent, and it is not in the best interests of the child to dislodge a psychological parent, even if that parent is not a biological parents. Put another way, a conclusive presumption is really part of the definition of what a father is under the law. Several other answers at Law.SE have addressed this in the context of specific U.S. states. An answer here considers California law and another answers the question under New York law.
If you form an LLC, and then someone later obtains a registered trademark in the same name, the registered trademark would be enforceable everywhere except in the markets and places where the LLC developed common law trademark rights prior to their registration. Your LLC formation would also put a bump in the road in their trademark application. You can, of course, do both, although it is unclear to me why you feel such urgency in the likelihood of an infringement, which suggests that there may be relevant facts that aren't revealed by your post.
The comments have basically covered this, but: It's a slightly weird parallel structure ("who shall not be at least 25, and been a citizen for 7 years, and who shall not be a resident"). The Constitution is not written in fluid 21st-century English. But the obviously correct way to parse the sentence is that no one can be a representative who isn't a 25-year-old or older who's been a citizen for at least 7 years; furthermore, no one can be a representative who wasn't a resident of the state they represent when they were elected. With some parts of the Constitution (like the Second Amendment), the drafting results in actual disputes about the intended meaning. With other parts (like here), only one reading makes any sense. It's the same with the requirements to be President. The Constitution says "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President," which could be read as "you're not eligible unless, when the Constitution was adopted, you were either a citizen of the US or a natural-born citizen." But that's a silly reading, so "at the time of the Adoption" is read as only applying to "a Citizen of the United States:" natural-born citizens are eligible period, and people who were born before the US was a thing but were citizens by the time the Constitution was adopted were grandfathered in.
If Person A commits a criminal or civil offense on Day 1, which then becomes lawful on Day 2, can Person A be prosecuted or sued on Day 3 (Day 1, 2, and 3 are not necessarily subsequent days, but happen in this order)? As a general rule they can be prosecuted but the exactly language of the effective date language in the statute controls. It might say, for example, &quot;effective for prosecutions filed after Day 2&quot; in which case it couldn't be prosecuted. Also, if Person A is a minor when the offense occurred, but is now an adult, would the person be legally considered a minor or an adult if prosecuted or sued? Generally speaking, a minor. But this is a function of the language of the statute in question in the case of juvenile prosecutions. If a statute of limitations is shortened, then does the new one apply or the one that existed when the person did the crime/tort? Again, it depends upon the effective date language of the statute. Typically, it will apply to suits filed after the effective date.
It is technically legal, but enforcement of such legality would face insurmountable difficulties without a compelling commercial interest. Legality A George Washington Law Review article states that An influential 1979 law review article concluded that when parents agree, they “should have the freedom to give their children any reasonable surname.” Courts could disallow “a surname chosen for a child by his parents if it were so outrageous or obscene that it was clearly not in the child’s best interests to bear the surname.” But terms like “reasonable” and “outrageous” are highly subjective and give little guidance to courts on what factors to take into account. The most relevant bodies of constitutional doctrine are substantive due process jurisprudence under the Fourteenth Amendment and free speech jurisprudence under the First Amendment. This Part develops the arguments for a parental naming right under both bodies of law, and concludes that strict scrutiny is the relevant standard for analyzing restrictions on that right. It further concludes that current laws prohibiting certain surnames and laws prohibiting diacritical marks are unconstitutional, as they are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Laws against obscenities, ideograms and pictograms, and certain length restrictions pass strict scrutiny, as do requirements that the child receive at least two names. Meaning that in the absence of a state law prohibiting a certain naming convention, anything goes. But states have the power to pass laws to narrowly define what kinds of names are contrary to &quot;compelling state interest.&quot; A review of relevant history and laws, applicable to change of surname in a divorce in Wisconsin, concluded that, because of Jocius v Jocius, &quot;child's best interest&quot; is not a standard available to Wisconsin courts to empower the courts to force a change of a child's name contrary to parents' wishes. Such legislation can be passed, but it hasn't been. Impracticality However, some of costs associated with having a blank last name would be: obtaining insurance having any medical procedures registering for school getting a library card and many, many more. In fact, the last two are currently technically impossible because Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction demands that &quot;first and last name are required.&quot; It is likely that overcoming the confusion resulting from not having a last name would turn most daily life activities into something that would require a letter from an attorney, or even a court order. Without a substantial commercial gain from this arrangement, this would be an experiment with an unjustified prohibitive cost. Lighter side The day-to-day difficulties resulting from the absurdities of such an experiment could be easily developed into a plot for a comedy. Personally, I was imagining a few potential South Park plot lines while trying to think through the implications of this arrangement. The likely outcome, of not having a real last name, would be that many clerks would end up simply making them up for such an individual, in order to accommodate their computer systems. And hilarity would undoubtedly ensue. Edit while I appreciate the &quot;+1&quot;-for-the-effort gesture of the upvotes, I am actually surprised that this answer has gotten as many upvotes as it has. I would gladly delete it if a better referenced answer, with more specific information, came along. I wrote this mostly to list the references which I found. The conclusion which I draw here is what I personally have been able to deduce from those references. So, please, stop upvoting. This is not a high-quality answer. And the fact that the answer is looking like it may very well be &quot;yes&quot; makes this an interesting question, that deserves a better answer.
Both parents are legally responsible for the financial costs of raising a child. If you don’t have day-to-day care of the child, you may have to pay child maintenance to your partner or she may apply for maintenance and name you as the parent who has to pay maintenance. You are allowed to deny that you are the father of the child and if she wishes to pursue it further, you both may be asked to take a DNA test in order to prove or disprove that you are the father. You cannot force her to do this. It must be voluntary on both sides. If you're just looking to force her to have a DNA test based on the morality of raising a child then whilst I admire your attitude, unfortunately this is not something you can force her to do. For more information on this matter, head over to this article on the citizens advice website. I hope this helps