In re Marriage Cases

Decision Date15 May 2008
Docket NumberNo. S147999.,S147999.
Citation76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683,183 P.3d 384,43 Cal.4th 757
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesIn re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.]<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

To continue reading

Request your trial
143 cases
  • People v. Douglas
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 2018
    ...135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 [recognizing a federal constitutional right for same-sex marriages]; In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 840-844, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 3844 [sexual orientation is a suspect classification for purposes of California's equal protection clause].)......
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2021
    ...effect of "insulat[ing] the challenged ... statute from any meaningful equal protection review." ( In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 831, fn. 54, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 ; see Shay, Similarly Situated (2011) 18 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 581, 624 [" ‘Similarly situated’ should no......
  • People v. Thompson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 1, 2016
    ...that we strive to interpret statutes (such as § 1054) so as to avoid constitutional problems (see In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 800, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 ), because we find defendant had no constitutional right to discovery from her codefendant, we have no occasion......
  • Varnum v. Brien
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 3, 2009
    ...equal protection challenges to statutes that restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. See In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, 435 n. 54 (2008) (analyzing and rejecting the government's threshold argument that same-sex couples are not similarly situated ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 books & journal articles
  • Reevaluating Suspect Classifications
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 35-01, September 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...1313971780-PT1GjW45MNu+8NWdSH+ahg. 123. In reMarriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 442 (Cal. 2008). Although the Court's opinion dealt with California law on suspect classification, its analysis is equally germane to the factors under the Constitution. 124. Id.at 443 (internal citations omitted). T......
  • Straddling the Columbia: a Constitutional Law Professor's Musings on Circumventing Washington State's Criminal Prohibition on Compensated Surrogacy
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law University of Washington Law Review No. 89-4, June 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...651, 658-59 (W.D. Tex. 2014); Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, 982 n.5 (N.D. Cal. 2012); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 420-21, 421 n.33, 429-30 (Cal. 2008). 176. See Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1071, 1094-96 (D. Haw. 2012); In re Marriage ......
  • Equal Protection
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIII-2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or AIDS status must be submitted for voter approval); see also In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 442 (Cal. 2008) (holding sexual orientation as a suspect class subject to strict scrutiny for the purposes of the California Constitution). 37......
  • Reversal of Fortune: the Inapposite Standards Applied to Remedial Race-, Gender-, and Orientation-based Classifications
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 92, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...385 (5th Cir. 1967). 2. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 264 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting). 3. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 398 (Cal. 4. See infra section III.C. 5. Taxman v. Bd. of Educ., 91 F.3d 1547, 1567 (3d Cir. 1996) (Sloviter, C.J., dissenting). 6. In re Ma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 provisions
  • Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 22, § 50961 Estate Claims
    • United States
    • California Code Of Regulations 2023 Edition Title 22. Social Security Division 3. Health Care Services Subdivision 1. California Medical Assistance Program Chapter 2.5. Third Party Liability Article 2. Estate Recovery
    • January 1, 2023
    ...for Nursing Home Reform v. Bontá (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 498; Shewry v. Begil (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 639; In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757; Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1140; Section 2602(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, (Pub. L. No. 111-1......
  • Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 22, § 50962 Notification
    • United States
    • California Code Of Regulations 2023 Edition Title 22. Social Security Division 3. Health Care Services Subdivision 1. California Medical Assistance Program Chapter 2.5. Third Party Liability Article 2. Estate Recovery
    • January 1, 2023
    ...and 19202, Probate Code; California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform v. Bontá (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 498; In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757; Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1140; Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) 570 U.S. 12-144; and United States v. Windsor (2013) 570 U.S. ...
  • Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 22, § 50963 Substantial Hardship Criteria
    • United States
    • California Code Of Regulations 2023 Edition Title 22. Social Security Division 3. Health Care Services Subdivision 1. California Medical Assistance Program Chapter 2.5. Third Party Liability Article 2. Estate Recovery
    • January 1, 2023
    ...No. 65 § 3810; California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform v. Bontá (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 498; In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757; Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1140; Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) 570 U.S. 12-144; and United States v. Windsor (2013) 570 U.S. ...
  • California Register, 2014, Number 37. September 12, 2014
    • United States
    • California Register
    • Invalid date
    ...for Nursing Home Reform v. Bonta (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 498; Shewry v. Begil (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 639; In re Mar- riage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757; Perry v. Brown (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1140; Section 2602(f) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, (Pub. No. 111–148......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT