Same-Sex Marriage Laws

Useful Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage Laws

Recent Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage Laws

KENNETH PAUL FOX ET AL VS REDMOND JAMES ONEAL

The complaint alleges Plaintiff Fox is gay and that Plaintiff Villarba is his same-sex partner. The complaint also alleges that Fox was walking between his residence and a local laundromat on May 2, 2018 when Defendant, unprovoked and without consent, intentionally and unlawfully struck Fox in the head with a bottle or other hard object and threatened, abused, harassed, and intimidated Fox while he was on the ground.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

KENNETH PAUL FOX ET AL VS REDMOND JAMES ONEAL

The complaint alleges Plaintiff Fox is gay and that Plaintiff Villarba is his same-sex partner. The complaint alleges that Fox was walking between his residence and a local laundromat on May 2, 2018 when Defendant, unprovoked and without consent, intentionally and unlawfully struck Fox in the head with a bottle or other hard object and threatened, abused, harassed, and intimidated Fox while he was on the ground. On August 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motions to have RFAs deemed admitted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

To qualify for a domestic partnership, the couple must be either members of the same sex, or one or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act. It also states “persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.” Family Code § 297.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2019

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

To qualify for a domestic partnership, the couple must be either members of the same sex, or one or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act. It also states “persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2019

SHARON LOUISE MACDONELL V. SHIPPING SOLUTIONS, LP, ET AL.

The statute states as follows: “(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) [referring to same sex marriages, not relevant here], a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be entered unless one of the parties to the marriage has been a resident of this state for six months and of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months next preceding the filing of the petition.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS BIERSMITH

During the course, Thompson discussed a United States Supreme Court decision that had been decided recently regarding same sex marriage and Thompson’s questions to her developed only the side against legalizing same-sex marriage, according to Krista E. Krista E. felt she was not treated the same as other students.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

BARTOLOMEIO SGAMBATI VS DAVID HUYNH

A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division and satisfy other requirements (i.e., not currently married to another, not blood-related, over the age of 18, and are members of the same sex). (Family Code, §297(b).) Here, there is no indication that the parties registered as a domestic partnership.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

The marriage in Ferry was held to be “facially invalid” because the parties were a same-sex couple who could not have a good faith belief in the validity of their marriage since such marriages were not legal at the time. To require adherence to all the requirements of Section 297(b) in order for putative status to apply would ignore the case authority that the Court consider the subjective belief of the spouse. The California Supreme Court, in Ceja v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

STEVEN HAWKINS ET AL VS PHILLIP CABASSO MD ET AL

The marriage in Ferry was held to be “facially invalid” because the parties were a same-sex couple who could not have a good faith belief in the validity of their marriage since such marriages were not legal at the time. To require adherence to all the requirements of Section 297(b) in order for putative status to apply would ignore the case authority that the Court consider the subjective belief of the spouse. The California Supreme Court, in Ceja v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

CHRISTOPHER BONHAGE ET AL V. HIRAL HANSAPRIYA RAWSON

As part of this program, athletes providing a urine sample in the presence of a same sex monitor. (Ibid.) Student athletes challenged the drug testing program as a violation of their right to privacy. (Id. at pp. 8-9.)

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

JAMES LI VS WENDY CHANG ET AL

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MOVING PARTY: Defendants Wendy Chang, Cynthia Loo and Bryant Yang RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff James Li in pro per STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s application to be appointed to three State Bar Committees because Plaintiff was publicly critical of the Chinese-American legal community’s support to overturn the ban against same-sex marriage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2017

JAMES LI VS WENDY CHANG ET AL

(1) SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE (SLAPP) RE: COMPLAINT; (2) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Defendants Wendy Chang, Cynthia Loo and Bryant Yang RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Plaintiff James Li STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s application to be appointed to three State Bar Committees because Plaintiff was publicly critical of the Chinese-American legal community’s support to overturn the ban against same-sex marriage.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MAXINE MARIAH MEDINA ET AL VS CITY OF EL MONTE ET AL

One of the requirements for a domestic partnership is that either: 1) both persons are members of the same sex; or 2) at least one meets the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act. Id., § 297(b)(3). Persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over 62 years of age. Id. The Court finds that De Luna has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she is Decedent’s surviving spouse or domestic partner.

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2016

LISA TURNER VS. KELLEE CLOUGHERTY

Since same sex marriage was not legal until June 2013, D argues, there was no possibility for them to be married for most of their relationship. D does not cite any authority by which a court has determined that same sex partners should be considered "spouses" under the statute. While the spirit of the law might have been intended to protect the type of situation we have here – long term committed relationships involving same-sex couples – the statute seems clear that it is to protect spouses only.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2016

Anderson vs. Catlett

Whether or not “family” was intended to cover same-sex partners, the evidence submitted by debtor indicates that he and Mr. Casson have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years, and apparently hold themselves out as partners. Whether or not they have filed any domestic partner forms, or participated in a commitment ceremony (or actual marriage ceremony), this court concludes that the “family” under CCP §706.051 includes a dependent same-sex partner when the indicia of a marriage exist.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2013

ANDERSON VS. CATLETT

Whether or not “family” was intended to cover same-sex partners, the evidence submitted by debtor indicates that he and Mr. Casson have been in a committed relationship for over 10 years, and apparently hold themselves out as partners. Whether or not they have filed any domestic partner forms, or participated in a commitment ceremony (or actual marriage ceremony), this court concludes that the “family” under CCP §706.051 includes a dependent same-sex partner when the indicia of a marriage exist.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2013

BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

DEMURRER TO 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, line 1, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Off Calendar, matter assigned to Judge Kramer. =(302/CWW)...

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2010

BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

DEMURRER TO 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, March 4, 2010, line 2, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Demurrer sustained without leave to amend. The allegations raised in the third amended complaint were decided in Strauss vs. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364. No reasonable probability that defect ...

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2010

BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

DEMURRER TO 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, February 18, 2010, line 5, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT. Continued to March 4, 2010 to be heard by Judge Woolard. Furthermore, plaintiff to provide courtesy copy of opposition with a cover letter reflecting the new hearing date. =(302/AJR)...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2010

BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT Set for hearing on Thursday, October 29, 2009, line 11, DEFENDANT STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. DEMURRER SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED IN THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF WERE DECIDED IN STRAUSS V. HORTON (2009) 46 CAL.4TH 364. NO REASO...

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2009

MICHELLE L KRIETHE VS. LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

Recent authority holds that same-sex couples who agree to have children by way of surrogacy and/or in vitro fertilization are "parents" within the meaning of the Uniform Parentage Act, without any requirement of a formal adoption. (See Elise B. v. Sup. Ct. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 108, 113 [which held that a woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, although neither the birth mother nor a genetic contributor to the child, was legally the child's parent]; and see K.M. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2009

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn For Leave To File A Complaint In Intervention And Proposed Proposition 8 Official Proponent Hak-Shing William Tam'S Appendix Of Non-California Authorities Set for hearing on Monday, September 28, 2009, line 5, INTERVENOR HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Motion for Leave to File a Complaint in Intervention. Off Calendar. CCP section 100...

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2009

BURNS TOMMY ET AL VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE Set for hearing on Monday, September 28, 2009, line 5, INTERVENOR HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE. Off Calendar. CCP section 1005(b) requires at least sixteen court day notice. Movant served these motions on September 9, 2009 by overnight delivery, which is insufficient. =(302/CWW...

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2009

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.