Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Matrimonial StrategistKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Current Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
July 21, 2004

The following list and descriptions of current same-sex marriage litigation was compiled by Liberty Counsel. It is accurate through July 9, 2004.

FEDERAL COURT

Minnesota

  • Baker v. IRS (In May 2004, a same-sex couple filed suit in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota challenging as unconstitutional the IRS's refusal to permit them to amend their 2000 tax returns to reflect their status as “married, filing jointly”).

Florida

  • Sullivan v. Bush (an unmarried same-sex couple brought suit in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida challenging state marriage laws and the Federal DOMA as unconstitutional).
  • Taylor v. Bush (in response to Sullivan v. Bush, Liberty Counsel commenced a declaratory judgment action in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).

Massachusetts

  • Largess v. SJC (in an effort to invalidate all or a part of the Goodridge decision, Liberty Counsel brought suit in federal court arguing that the Goodridge decision violates the federal guarantee of a republican form of government insofar as the court expressly performed a legislative function in redefining the word “marriage”; the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 29, 2004, that the Federal Guarantee Clause was not violated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision. A petition will be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the case).

Nebraska

  • Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning (gay-rights advocacy organization challenged Nebraska's constitutional amendment, which prohibits same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, as unconstitutional; the District Court denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, suggesting that the state constitutional amendment may violate the federal constitutional guarantees, as articulated in Romer v. Evans).

STATE COURT

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.