Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the District Court of Appeal for Florida in Ocasio v. Bureau of Crimes, etc., 408 So. 2d 751, 752 (Fla. App. 1982), cited to State ex rel. Perez v. Wall, 41 Fla. 463, 26 So. 1020 (1899), for the following proposition: “ ‘We do not think it can be maintained that a husband is related to his wife by affinity. They are embraced in the definition of neither affinity nor consanguinity, but are regarded in law ... as one person.’ ” See, also, Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So. 2d 727 (1941) (estates by entirety are predicated on unity of husband and wife making them one person in law); Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co., 34 Wis. 2d 542, 150 N.W.2d 137 (1967) (historically, by marriage husband and wife are one person in law). See, also, State v. Hooper, 140 Kan. 481, 37 P.2d 52 (1934) (<HOLDING>). While there is authority that husband and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that doctrine of affinity grew out of canonical maxim that marriage makes husband and wife one (B) holding that the trial court committed manifest error by substituting its judgment for that of a valid and enforceable contractual agreement between the parties when it awarded wife nearly half the value of specific assets acquired during the marriage in disregard of antenuptial agreement calling for husband to take 23 and wife to take 13 of property acquired during the marriage (C) holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage (D) holding claims waived because they all grew out of their unsatisfactory business relationship (E) holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted
Output (English): holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage