Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation
Judge Finds Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional
A judge in Dallas has held that Texas' constitutional ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. In an order signed on Oct. 1 in In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 320th District Judge Tena Callahan held that Texas Constitution Article 1, ' 32(a), which provides that “marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman,” violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Callahan further held that Texas Family Code ' 6.704, which addresses testimony of a man and wife in a suit for dissolution of a marriage, violates the 14th Amendment.
She prefaced those findings by writing that she was ruling “[o]n the limited issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to divorce parties who have legally married in another jurisdiction and who otherwise meet the residency and other prerequisites required to file for a divorce in Dallas County, Texas.” Callahan found that she has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce of two men legally married in another jurisdiction and struck the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Office of the Attorney General.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, who intervened in the case, writes in a statement that he will appeal the ruling. “The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition ' despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75% of Texas voters.”
Voters approved the constitutional provision in November 2005. Peter Schulte of Schulte & Apgar in Dallas, attorney for one of the men involved in the divorce case, did not immediately return a telephone call for comment.
' Mary Alice Robbins, The Texas Lawyer
Judge Finds Texas Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional
A judge in Dallas has held that Texas' constitutional ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment. In an order signed on Oct. 1 in In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B., 320th District Judge Tena Callahan held that Texas Constitution Article 1, ' 32(a), which provides that “marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman,” violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Callahan further held that Texas Family Code ' 6.704, which addresses testimony of a man and wife in a suit for dissolution of a marriage, violates the 14th Amendment.
She prefaced those findings by writing that she was ruling “[o]n the limited issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction to divorce parties who have legally married in another jurisdiction and who otherwise meet the residency and other prerequisites required to file for a divorce in Dallas County, Texas.” Callahan found that she has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce of two men legally married in another jurisdiction and struck the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Office of the Attorney General.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, who intervened in the case, writes in a statement that he will appeal the ruling. “The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition ' despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75% of Texas voters.”
Voters approved the constitutional provision in November 2005. Peter Schulte of Schulte & Apgar in Dallas, attorney for one of the men involved in the divorce case, did not immediately return a telephone call for comment.
' Mary Alice Robbins, The Texas Lawyer
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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
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?
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
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.