Case: In re Marriage Cases

04-04365 | California state trial court

Filed Date: 2004

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 2004, the Mayor of the City of San Francisco ("City") directed the city clerk to alter forms and documents required for the issuance of marriage licenses so that they could be used by same-sex couples, and then to issue such licenses. The Attorney General of California and opponents of same-sex marriage filed writ petitions to enjoin this action and enforce then-current Family Code provisions defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The City and groups of same-sex couples filed va…

In 2004, the Mayor of the City of San Francisco ("City") directed the city clerk to alter forms and documents required for the issuance of marriage licenses so that they could be used by same-sex couples, and then to issue such licenses. The Attorney General of California and opponents of same-sex marriage filed writ petitions to enjoin this action and enforce then-current Family Code provisions defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The City and groups of same-sex couples filed various actions seeking declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the Mayor's action and their marriages. The various actions were consolidated into a single case (see below for constituent actions).

The case brought together City of San Francisco v. State, No. A110449 (Cal. Ct. App.), No. CGC-04-429539 (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County); Tyler v. State, No. A110450 (Cal. Ct. App.), No. BS-088506 (Super. Ct. L.A. County); Woo v. Lockyer, No. A110451 (Cal. Ct. App.), No. CPF-04-504038 (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County); Clinton v. State, No. A110463 (Cal. Ct. App.), No. CGC-04-429548 (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County); Proposition 22 Legal Defense & Education Fund v. City of San Francisco, No. A110651 (Cal. Ct. App.), No. CPF-04-503943 (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County); and Campaign for California Families v. Newsom, No. A110652 (Cal. Ct. App.), No. CGC-04-428794 (Super. Ct. S.F. City & County). The Superior Court of San Francisco held that the Family Code provisions were unconstitutional under California equal protection doctrine. That holding was reversed on appeal, and opposite-sex definitions of marriage were held constitutional by the appellate court.

The California Supreme Court, C.J. Ronald M. George, held that privacy and due process provisions of the state constitution entitle all citizens to a right to marriage. It was the first U.S. case to establish sexual orientation as a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny. It found that provisions of California codes that limited marriage to its opposite-sex definition were not necessary to a compelling state interest. The Court also held that opponents of such marriages had no standing to request declaratory judgment on such a matter, as their injuries were merely intellectual, and not legally substantial. As such, opposite-sex only marriage provisions of the California Code were held unconstitutional.

It was after this case that California's Proposition 8 was put to the voters and approved: it stripped the title of marriage from same-sex domestic partnerships, until it was held unconstitutional by the federal courts. (See Perry, PB-CA-29, in this Clearinghouse.)

Summary Authors

Margo Schlanger (5/15/2008)

Carlos Torres (5/19/2013)

People


Judge(s)

Baxter, Marvin R. (California)

Chin, Ming W. (California)

Corrigan, Carol A. (California)

George, Ronald M. (California)

Kennard, Joyce L. (California)

McGuiness, William R (California)

Moreno, Carlos R. (California)

Werdegar, Kathryn M. (California)

Judge(s)

Baxter, Marvin R. (California)

Chin, Ming W. (California)

Corrigan, Carol A. (California)

George, Ronald M. (California)

Kennard, Joyce L. (California)

McGuiness, William R (California)

Moreno, Carlos R. (California)

Werdegar, Kathryn M. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

S147999

[Supreme Court of California Docket]

California state supreme court

June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Docket

JCCP No. 4365

A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652 (Consolidated Appeals)

California state appellate court

Oct. 5, 2006

Oct. 5, 2006

Order/Opinion

S147999

A110449

A110450

A110451

A110463

A110651

A110652

JCCP No. 4365

[Opinion]

California state supreme court

183 P.3d 384

May 15, 2008

May 15, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 19, 2022, 3 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

City and County of San Francisco, Respondent by Therese Stewart, counsel

Nov. 13, 2006

Nov. 13, 2006

nan

Nov. 13, 2006

Nov. 13, 2006

nan

Nov. 13, 2006

Nov. 13, 2006

counsel for appellant, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund Andrew Pugno, counsel

Nov. 14, 2006

Nov. 14, 2006

counsel for aplt. (Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund), Benjamin W. Bull and Glen Lavy

Nov. 14, 2006

Nov. 14, 2006

Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, respondent by Shannon Minter, counsel

Nov. 14, 2006

Nov. 14, 2006

Gregory Clinton, et al., respondent by Waukeen Q. Mccoy, counsel

Nov. 14, 2006

Nov. 14, 2006

Equality California, respondent by Shanon Minter, counsel

Nov. 14, 2006

Nov. 14, 2006

Errata for Petition for Review for Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund by Andrew P. Pugno, counsel

Nov. 15, 2006

Nov. 15, 2006

nan

Nov. 22, 2006

Nov. 22, 2006

A110449-file jacket/briefs/two boxes

Nov. 22, 2006

Nov. 22, 2006

Plaintiff - Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund requesting to file consolidated answer by Timothy Chandler, counsel

Dec. 1, 2006

Dec. 1, 2006

Propostions 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, plaintiffs by Timothy Chandler, counsel with permission

Dec. 1, 2006

Dec. 1, 2006

file one consolidated answer to petitions for review. Respondent, State of California, et. al. by Attorney General, Christopher E. Krueger.

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

Consoldiated answer of Respondent, State of California, et al., by Deputy Attorney General, Christopher E. Krueger.

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

California Women's Law Center & Legal Momentum Attorney Elizabeth L. Rosenblatt

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

Mathew D. Staver of Florida to appear on behalf of appellant, Campaign for California Families.

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

City and County of San Francisco, et al., respondent by Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, counsel

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

Respondents, Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, et.al. by counsel, Stephen V. Bomse.

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

Respondent, Prop.22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. by counsel, Tery L. Thompson

Dec. 4, 2006

Dec. 4, 2006

nan

Dec. 6, 2006

Dec. 6, 2006

file one consolidated reply to answers to petition for review. Respondents, Joshua Rymer, et. al. by counsel, Shannon Minter.

Dec. 11, 2006

Dec. 11, 2006

file one consolidated reply to answers Respondent, City and County of San Francisco by counsel Therese M. Stewart

Dec. 11, 2006

Dec. 11, 2006

one consoldiated reply of respondents, Joshua Rymer, et. al. by counsel, Shannon Minter.

Dec. 13, 2006

Dec. 13, 2006

Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund by counsel, Andrew P. Pugno.

Dec. 14, 2006

Dec. 14, 2006

The Equal Justice Society (non-party) by Eva Patterson

Dec. 15, 2006

Dec. 15, 2006

Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (non-party) by Daniel Powell.

Dec. 15, 2006

Dec. 15, 2006

The requests to appear as counsel pro hac vice, filed November 14, 2006 and December 4, 2006, are granted. The request for judicial notice, filed November 13, 2006, is granted. All six petitions for review, filed November 13 and 14, 2006, are GRANTED. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

Dec. 20, 2006

Dec. 20, 2006

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco: asking to March 19, 2007 to file the opening brief on the merits. by counsel, Therese M. Stewart.

Jan. 2, 2007

Jan. 2, 2007

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco re: order granting review by counsel, Therese M. Stewart.

Jan. 3, 2007

Jan. 3, 2007

Attorney Gloria Allred for respondents, Robin Tyler, et.al.

Jan. 4, 2007

Jan. 4, 2007

FAXED letter from Alliance Defense Fund re: clarification of Court's order

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

Request for extension of time to file the opening brief on the merits respondents, Rymer, et al. by counsel, Shannon Minter requsest not filed as order filed Jan. 5, 2007 has extended time to March 19, 2007, for all parties to file their opening briefs on the merits

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

Attorney Andrew P. Pugno for respondents Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

Attorney Shannon Minter for respondents, National Center for Lesbian Rights filed on behalf or the respondents Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, et al., Intervener and Respondent Equality California, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, et al.

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

On application of the City and County of San Francisco, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its opening brief on the merits is extended to and including March 19, 2007. In light of this request, the time is also extended to March 19, 2007, for other parties to file their opening briefs on the merits. No further extensions of time to file the opening briefs on the merits are contemplated. In response to the request of the City and County of San Francisco for clarification of this court's December 20, 2006, order granting review in these cases, the order should be interpreted as granting review in all of the cases and on all of the issues addressed by the Court of Appeal in its decision in this coordinated matter. Petitioners and intervenor in the cases of CCSF v. State, Woo v. State, Clinton v. State, and Tyler v. State may address in their opening briefs on the merits the issues related to whether the State may address in their opening briefs on the merits the issues related to whether the marriage statutes violate the California Constitution. Petitioners in the cases of Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. CCSF and Campaign for California Families v. Newsom may address in their opening briefs on the merits the issue of justiciability or standing addressed by the Court of Appeal.

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

Original copy of letter from Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Prop. 22 Legal Defense Fund requesting clarification of court's order. by counsel, Glen Lavy.

Jan. 8, 2007

Jan. 8, 2007

Original request of Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education fund to file their opening brief on the merits. by cousnel, Glen Lavy.

Jan. 8, 2007

Jan. 8, 2007

Attorney Mary E. McAlister for Appellant, Campagn for Calfiornia Families.

Jan. 8, 2007

Jan. 8, 2007

Faxed letter form Attorney Mary E. McAlister re: clairifcation of court's order.

Jan. 8, 2007

Jan. 8, 2007

Original of faxed letter sent by Mary E. McAlister.

Jan. 10, 2007

Jan. 10, 2007

In response to the separate letters received from counsel for Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund on January 8, 2007, and from counsel for Campaign for California Families on January 10, 2007, the court clarifies that, to facilitate the orderly briefing of the issues addressed by the Court of Appeal in this matter, if either of these parties wishes to brief the issue of justiciability or standing addressed by the Court of Appeal, the party must address that issue in an opening brief on the merits. Each of these parties may file an answer brief on the merits addressing the issues related to whether the marriage statutes violate the California Constitution.

Jan. 12, 2007

Jan. 12, 2007

Respondents Robin Tyler, Diane Olson, Troy Perry & Phillip De Blieck Attorneys Gloria Allred, etal

Feb. 14, 2007

Feb. 14, 2007

Therese M. Stewart, Office of the City Attorney.

Feb. 26, 2007

Feb. 26, 2007

City and County of San Francisco. Asking to Aoril 2, 2007, to file the opening brief on the merits. by counsel, Therese M. Stewart.

Feb. 26, 2007

Feb. 26, 2007

proof of service of amended cover on Opening/Brief Merits filed 2-14-07 Respondents Robin Tyler, etal Attorneys Gloria Allred, etal

Feb. 27, 2007

Feb. 27, 2007

On application of the City and County of San Francisco, and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 10(a) of the supporting declaration, it is ordered that the time to serve and file its opening brief on the merits is extended to and including April 2, 2007. In light of this request, the time is also extended to April 2, 2007, for other parties to file their opening briefs on the merits. No further extensions of time to file the opening briefs on the merits will be granted.

Feb. 27, 2007

Feb. 27, 2007

Appellant, State of California, et. al., to file one consolidated answer brief on the merits. Asking to June 1, 2007.

March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

On application of the State of California, the request for permission to file a single answer brief on the merits in response to all of the opening briefs is granted, and it is ordered that the time to file that single answer brief on the merits is extended ot and including June 1, 2007. In light of this request, the time is also extended to June 1, 2007, for other parties to file their answer briefs on the merits. No further extensions of time to file the answer briefs on the merits will be granted.

March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

Respondents, Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, et al., application to file opening brief in excess word count. by Shanon Minter, counsel

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

Respondents, Gregroy Clinton, et al. by counsel, Waukeen W. McCoy.

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

Respondent, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund by counsel pro hac vice, Glen Lavy.

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

Respondent, Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund's Motion to Augment Record by cousel pro hac vice, Glen Lavy.

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco's opening brief on the merits in excess of the word count.

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

Application of Respondent, City and County of San Francisco's application to file brief in excess of the word count. by Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart.

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

to augment the record. Respondent, City and County of San Francisco by Chief Deputy City Attorney , Therese M. Stewart.

April 2, 2007

April 2, 2007

Appellant, Campaign for California Families by Mary E. McAlister, counsel crc.8.25(b)

April 3, 2007

April 3, 2007

The application of respondents, Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, filed April 2, 2007, for permission to file respondents' opening brief on the merits in excess of the word limit is hereby granted.

April 3, 2007

April 3, 2007

The application of respondent, City and County of San Francisco, filed April 2, 2007, for permission to file respondent's opening brief on the merits in excess of the word limit is hereby granted.

April 3, 2007

April 3, 2007

Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, et al., respondents by Shannon Minter, counsel filed with permission

April 3, 2007

April 3, 2007

The three separate motions to augment the record, filed on April 2, 2007, by (1) the City and County of San Francisco, (2) counsel for specified same-sex couples (designated in motion as "Respondents"), and (3) Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, are granted.

April 4, 2007

April 4, 2007

Respondent, State of California et al. Sup. Dep. Attorney General, Christopher E. Krueger.

May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

In light of (1) the declaration appended to the "Second Application of the State of California" for an extension of time in which to serve and file a single answer brief on the merits and (2) the prior order of this court, filed March 8, 2007, addressing the issue of further extensions of time to file that answer brief, the time in which to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to June 14, 2007. No further extensions of time to file the answer brief on the merits will be granted.

May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007

Letter from counsel Glen Lavy, counsel for Respondent Proposition 22, dated May 25, 2007, asking clarification of the court's order extending time to file answer rbief on the merits.

May 25, 2007

May 25, 2007

The order of this court filed on May 24, 2007, granting the application of appellant, State of California, for extension of time is hereby amended to read in its entirety: "In light of (1) the declaration appended to the "Second Application of the State of California" for an extension of time in which to serve and file a single answer brief on the merits and (2) the prior order of this court, filed March 8, 2007, addressing the issue of further extensions of time to file that answer brief, the time in which to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to June 14, 2007. The time is also extended to June 14, 2007, for other parties to serve and file their answer briefs on the merits." No further extensions of time to file the answer brief on the merits will be granted.

May 25, 2007

May 25, 2007

Appellant, Campaign for California Families, to file Answer Brief on the Merits by counsel, Mary E. McAlister.

June 7, 2007

June 7, 2007

Single answer brief in response to opening briefs filed with permission Appellant, Campaign for California Families by cousel, Mary E. McAlister.

June 7, 2007

June 7, 2007

The Knights of Columbus in support of defendants. by Patrick J. Gorman, counsel

June 11, 2007

June 11, 2007

file the Answer Brief on the Merits in excess of the word limit. by Christopher E. Krueger, Supervising Deputy Attorney General for the State of Calfiornia, et al.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

State of Calfiornia and the Attorney General by Supervising Attorney General, Christopher E. Krueger

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Substitution of Counsel by Kenneth C. Mennemeier for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Respondent, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al. by counsel, Kenneth C.Mennemeier.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Application of Respondents Joshua Rymer, et al. , to file a consolidated answer brief on the merits re: justiciability.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Respondents, Joshua Rymer, Tim Frazer, Equality California, etc. by counsel, Vanessa H. Eisemann. consolidated answer brief on the merits filed with permission.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

application of Respondent, City and County of San Francisco to file a consolidated answer brief on the merits.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco by counsel, Danny Chou. consolidated answer brief on the merits filed with permission.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco by counsel, Danny Chou.

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Paul Benjamin Linton of the State of Illinois on behalf of amicus curiae Knights of Columbus.

June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Thomas Brejcha of the State of Illinois for amicus curiae Knights of Columbus.

June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Respondent, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund/ Alliance Defense Fund by counsel, Glen Lavy crc.8.25(b)

June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Respondent, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, Alliance Defense Fund by counsel, Glen Lavy with permission to file combined overlength answer crc.8.25(b)

June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Judicial Watch in support of the State of California and the Governor by counsel, Sterling E. Norris.

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

Reply briefs on the merits in these consolidated cases are due on or before July 5, 2007. In addition to any reply brief that a party may choose to file, the court requests each party to file, on or before July 18, 2007, a supplemental brief addressing the following questions: 1. What differences in legal rights or benefits and legal obligations or duties exist under current California law affecting those couples who are registered domestic partners as compared to those couples who are legally married spouses? Please list all of the current differences of which you are aware. 2. What, if any, are the minimum, constitutionally-guaranteed substantive attributes or rights that are embodied within the fundamental constitutional "right to marry" that is referred to in cases such as Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 713-714? In other words, what set of substantive rights and/or obligations, if any, does a married couple possess that, because of their constitutionally protected status under the state Constitution, may not (in the absence of a compelling interest) be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature, or by the people through the initiative process, without amending the California Constitution? 3. Do the terms "marriage" or "marry" themselves have constitutional significance under the California Constitution? Could the Legislature, consistent with the California Constitution, change the name of the legal relationship of "marriage" to some other name, assuming the legislation preserved all of the rights and obligations that are now associated with marriage? 4. Should Family Code section 308.5 - which provides that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" - be interpreted to prohibit only the recognition in California of same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state or country or does the provision also apply to and prohibit same- sex marriages entered into within California? Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., art. IV, ?? 1, 2, cl.1), could California recognize same- sex marriages that are entered into within California but deny such recognition to same-sex marriages that are entered into in another state? Do these federal constitutional provisions affect how Family Code section 308.5 should be interpreted? The court notes that its request that the parties brief these matters does not necessarily signify that the court will address these points in its opinion. As indicated above, the supplemental briefs addressing these issues are to be served and filed simultaneously by the parties on or before July 18, 2007. The parties may serve and file simultaneous supplemental reply briefs, addressed solely to these questions, on or before August 1, 2007. Because of the nature and number of the questions to be addressed, the limitation on the permissible length of supplemental briefs set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(d)(2), do not apply to the requested supplemental briefs.

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

The application of Judicial Watch, Inc. for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the State of California and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is hereby granted. Any party may file a single consloldiated answer to all amicus curiae briefs within twenty days after the last date than an application to file an amicus curiae brief my be filed under rule 8.520(f)(2).

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

Judicial Watch, Inc. in support of the Sate of California and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. by cousel, Sterling E. Norris.

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

The application of the Knights of Columbus for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the State of California is hereby granted. Any party may file a single consolidated answer to all amicus curiae briefs within twenty days after the last date that an application to file an amicus curiae brief may be filed under rule 8.520(f)(2).

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

The application of Thomas Brejcha of the State of Illinois for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of amicus curiae, Knights of Columbus, is hereby granted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40).

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

Knights of Columbus in support of the State of California by counsel, Patrick J. Gorman, Paul Benjamin Linton (pro hac vice) and Thomas Brejcha (pro hac vice).

June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

City and County of San Francisco. Asking to September 3, 2007 to file: the Reply Brief on the Merits. and to Sept. 3, 207 to file the Supplemental Brief. by Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart.

June 21, 2007

June 21, 2007

On application of The City and County of San Francisco and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits and supplemental brief is hereby extended to and including August 3, 2007. The due date to file the supplemental reply brief is hereby extended to and including August 17, 2007. The time is also extended for all parties to file the reply briefs and supplemental briefs and supplemental reply briefs. No further extensions of time are contemplated.

June 22, 2007

June 22, 2007

to 246 W. Shaw Ave. for Patrick John Gorman, for Amicus Curiae, Knights of Columbus.

July 2, 2007

July 2, 2007

Errata to Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund's Answer to Petitioners' Opening Brief on the substantive issues. by counsel, Glen Lavy.

July 6, 2007

July 6, 2007

On application of Joshua Rymer and Tim Frazer, et al., and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the reply brief on the merits and supplemental brief is hereby extended to and including August 17, 2007. Time is extended for all parties to file the reply briefs, supplemental briefs, and supplemental reply briefs. No further extension will be granted.

July 20, 2007

July 20, 2007

nan

July 20, 2007

July 20, 2007

Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund By counsel, Glen Lavy ( amitted Pro Hac Vice ).

July 23, 2007

July 23, 2007

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and State Registrar of Vital Statistics by counsell, Kenneth C. Mennemeier.

Aug. 17, 2007

Aug. 17, 2007

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco by Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart.

Aug. 17, 2007

Aug. 17, 2007

Respondent, City and County of San Francisco ( Supplemental request). By Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart.

Aug. 17, 2007

Aug. 17, 2007

City and County of San Francisco to file the consolidated Reply Biref. by Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart.

Aug. 17, 2007

Aug. 17, 2007

City and County of San Francisco's Reply Brief in excess of the word limit by Chief Deputy City Attorney, Therese M. Stewart.

Aug. 17, 2007

Aug. 17, 2007

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Special Collection(s):

Same-Sex Marriage

Key Dates

Filing Date: 2004

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Same sex couples who wanted to get married.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Lambda Legal

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of California, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2008 - 0

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Gay/lesbian/transgender

Marriage

Discrimination-basis:

Sexual orientatation