Search for: "State v. Kerrigan" Results 1 - 20 of 60
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Oct 2008, 11:04 am
In the coming weeks and months, lots will be written about the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 9:06 pm
Act No. 09-13) which codifys the decision in Kerrigan v Commissioner of Public Health, which legalized same-sex marriage in the state. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 3:43 pm
The Connecticut Supreme Court has just released its opinion in the state same-sex marriage case, Kerrigan v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 9:45 am by ChalumeauLawGroup
Currently same-sex marriage is allowed in 5 states, including Connecticut which became the 3rd state to allow same-sex marriage in 2008 in the Supreme Court's decision in Kerrigan v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 9:45 am by ChalumeauLawGroup
Currently same-sex marriage is allowed in 5 states, including Connecticut which became the 3rd state to allow same-sex marriage in 2008 in the Supreme Court's decision in Kerrigan v. [read post]
2 May 2007, 6:37 am
The landmark constitutional case, Kerrigan et al v. the state Department of Public Health, will be argued before a full panel of the court May 14. [read post]
9 May 2012, 6:58 am by Ryan McKeen
’ Constitutional right of equal protection ‘‘is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike’’  Kerrigan v. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 2:40 pm
I’ve read Judge Pittman’s Superior Court Decision in Kerrigan v. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 8:58 pm
Recently on October 10, 2008, Connecticut became the third state to legalize same-sex marriage in Kerrigan v. the State Commissioner of Public Health in which the state Supreme Court struck down a statutory ban by a 4-3 decision. -- This Federalist Society panel will focus on the proper role of the judiciary. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 6:13 pm
  In yet another decision with a one-vote margin,* this time 4 to 3, the court ruled in Kerrigan v Commissioner of Public Health that the already-existing civil union system in the state was not sufficient to provide equal protection of the law to gay couples. [read post]