Perry, et al. v. Brown, et al.

Docket Number10-16696,10-16577
Decision Date07 February 2012

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
76 cases
  • Duncan v. Becerra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • March 29, 2019
    ...known as Proposition 63. Cf. Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 704 F.Supp.2d 921, 994–95 (N.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd sub nom. Perry v. Brown , 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), and aff'd sub nom. Perry v. Brown , 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) ("That the majority of California voters supported Proposition ......
  • Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • July 2, 2015
    ...III standing in federal court." Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 934 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1074 (9th Cir.2012) (vacated and remanded on other grounds by Hollingsworth, 133 S.Ct. at 2668 )); see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472......
  • Kitchen v. Herbert
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • December 20, 2013
    ...reasoning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Walker's holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1095 (9th Cir.2012). This issue was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court did not address the merits of the question presented. Hollin......
  • Obergefell v. Wymyslo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • December 23, 2013
    ...at 985–90;Pedersen, 881 F.Supp.2d at 310–33;Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921, 997 (N.D.Cal.2010) aff'd sub nom Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.2012) vacated and remanded sub nom Hollingsworth v. Perry, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013); In re Balas, 449 ......
  • Get Started for Free
14 books & journal articles
  • Disability Constitutional Law
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 63-3, 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...8 unconstitutional and detailing the extent to which it was based on stereotypes about same-sex couples), aff'd sub now. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated sub now. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).286. E.g., 159 Cong. Rec. H4168 (daily ed. June 28, 2013) (......
  • Marriage, Biology, and Federal Benefits
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-4, May 2013
    • May 1, 2013
    ...for writ of certiorari in Hollingsworth v. Perry , a case challenging Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 81 U.S.L.W. 3075 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2012) (No. 92-212). Although the discussion h......
  • Appendix 5: State Laws Relating to Marriage
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Transgender Persons and the Law
    • May 14, 2015
    ...Ark. 222, 2014 WL 2021834 (2014) 5. Cal. Const. art. 1, § 7.5 (Proposition 8 adopted 2008), declared unconstitutional by Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 671 F.3d 1052 (9 th Cir. 2012), aff’g 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), reh. en banc den . 681 F.3d 1065 (9 th Cir. 2012), cert. den., sub n......
  • Beyond DOMA: choice of state law in federal statutes.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 64 No. 6, June 2012
    • June 1, 2012
    ...Wash. 2004). (52.) See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd on narrower grounds, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1063 (9th Cir. (53.) Cf Akhil Reed Amar, Race, Religion, Gender, and Interstate Federalism. Some Notes from History, 16 QUINNIPIAC L. REV. 1......
  • Get Started for Free