Search for: "State v. Hollingsworth" Results 101 - 120 of 372
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2013, 4:32 pm by Sheppard Mullin
If that were not enough, the Supreme Court’s companion decision, Hollingsworth v Perry, No. 12-144, decided June 26, 2013, leaves in place a determination, under California state law, that same-sex partners could not be denied the benefits of marriage. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 1:09 pm by LindaMBeale
Just as the Supreme Court is preparing for oral argument regarding the validity under the Equal Protection clause of same-sex marriage restrictions on the 26th (Hollingsworth v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 9:30 pm by Timothy P. Flynn
We've been watching the gay-marriage case, Hollingsworth v Perry, for two years; here's a link to our first post detailing case. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:40 pm by Helen Alvare
Many likely expected that, to the extent that a discussion of the “nature of marriage” would feature at all in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage opinions, it would take place in the Hollingsworth v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 12:35 pm by Howard Wasserman
The key is, what would massive resistance to Hollingsworth look like? [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 2:03 pm by Jason Mazzone
Predicting the result in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 8:11 am by Marty Lederman
All of the amicus briefs have now been filed in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 3:03 pm by Jason Mazzone
The signs and banners outside the Supreme Court today referred to the right to marry but the argument in Hollingsworth v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 7:27 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act) and Hollingsworth v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 11:37 am by Tom Goldstein
Bloomberg’s coverage of Hollingsworth v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 4:35 pm by Sheppard Mullin
If that were not enough, the Supreme Court’s companion decision, Hollingsworth v Perry, No. 12-144, decided June 26, 2013, leaves in place a determination, under California state law, that same-sex partners could not be denied the benefits of marriage. [read post]