Search for: "Perry v. State of California" Results 201 - 220 of 786
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jan 2011, 4:01 pm by Lyle Denniston
  The certified question issue has now been docketed at the California Supreme Court, under case number S189476, Perry v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 3:18 pm
Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.'By those words and many others contained in the 138-page ruling in Perry v. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 11:47 am by Kalvis Golde
Hodges, in which the justices struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 1:52 pm by Transplanted Lawyer
Judge Walker has ordered that the stay of entry of judgment in Perry v. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 6:54 am by Ari Ezra Waldman
At 10 am Pacific (1 pm Eastern), the California Supreme Court will hear arguments in Perry v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 10:00 pm by Tom Goldstein
Neither seriously defends the Ninth Circuit’s rationale — applicable to California alone — that a state may not confer a right to same-sex marriage then revoke it. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 5:09 am by Timothy P. Flynn
  The appellate judge suggested that perhaps the issue could be posed to the California Supreme Court for a determination as to whether California law would allow any entity to stand in as a legal “proxy” for the suit.Perry’s well-heeled lawyers stated in response to the suggestion that even if California law allowed a proxy-style legal fight, the proxy would be unable to demonstrate how they were harmed by lifting the ban against same-sex… [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:37 am
As readers of this site know, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) has contested efforts by several gay-rights groups to intervene on behalf of additional plaintiffs in the federal challenge to Prop. 8, Perry v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 11:17 am by Record on Appeal
” Thus, had there been California law on point (which the court stated it found none) – the intervention of the proponents may have otherwise ended in the same result as Imperial County, its Board, and the Deputy County Clerk. [read post]