Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
PA Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships
Pennsylvania began issuing same-sex marriage licenses a year before the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (see the article in this issueby Frank Gulino) as a result of the Pennsylvania U.S. District Court case Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410, 420 (M.D. Pa. 2014). Prior to Whitewood' same-sex couples in Pennsylvania could not obtain a marriage license, and same-sex marriages that occurred in another state were not recognized in Pennsylvania. Consequently, courts in Pennsylvania generally would not dissolve legally established same-sex marriages that occurred in other states. This caused serious problems for same-sex couples who entered into a marriage in another state and could not dissolve their relationship in Pennsylvania. Ordinarily, the same-sex couple could not go back to the state in which they were married to get a divorce because, in order to obtain a divorce, most states require a person to be a resident of that state for a substantial amount of time. Thus, same-sex couples in Pennsylvania were left with very limited options to dissolve their relationship legally.
Although same-sex marriages and divorces can now be granted anywhere in the country, there are a few unanswered questions in Pennsylvania regarding how legal relationships between same-sex couples ' that are not marriages ' should be treated. More specifically, it is unclear whether or not Pennsylvania, a state that does not make state-wide civil unions and/or domestic partnerships available, will dissolve them. In addition, there is a question as to whether a prior civil union or domestic partnership will be counted in determining the property basis for equitable distribution for couples who subsequently marry the same partner with whom they were in a civil union or domestic partnership.
The History of Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships
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.