Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Heterosexual Discrimination By California Courts?

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
November 01, 2004

A Los Angeles District Court of Appeal threw out a suit by a man claiming that unmarried couples of the opposite sex should have the same right as same-sex couples to file wrongful-death suits. Jack Holguin said the law's exclusion of unmarried heterosexual couples violates his equal protection rights. Holguin v. Flores, B168774, Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal, Sept. 15, 2004. Holguin's girlfriend, Tamara Booth, was killed in a car accident. They had lived together for 3 years, but never married.

The Los Angeles County trial judge dismissed the complaint, and the 1st District affirmed, holding that the state legislature had “rational bases” for not extending partnership benefits to “cohabiting unmarried couples in general.” “The fact domestic partners are legally or practically prevented from marrying, while cohabiting couples of the opposite sex are not,” Justice Earl Johnson Jr. wrote, “provides a rational basis for extending the right to sue for wrongful death to the former but not the latter. “In addition,” he said, “married couples and domestic partners have publicly registered their legal relationship while cohabiting couples of the opposite sex have not, thereby providing an additional basis for recognizing the economic loss to the survivors of the former but not the latter.”

In passing the law in 2000, legislators said adult couples may qualify as domestic partners if they are of the same sex or one of the two is at least 62 years of age and eligible for Social Security benefits. The law was amended in 2002, adding several new rights and obligations, including the ability to sue for wrongful death. That change was prompted by the January 2001 dog-mauling death of Diane Whipple in San Francisco. Sharon Smith, Whipple's longtime partner, lobbied for the new law after finding out she — and all other same-sex couples — had no right to sue for wrongful death.

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.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?