lexisONE® Community

1. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, S142892, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 18, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a claim for sexual orientation discrimination, clinical physicians who refused to perform an intrauterine insemination for a lesbian patient could not assert an affirmative defense based on the free exercise of religion because neither the First Amendment nor Cal. Const., art. I, § 4, exempted them from complying with the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

2. In re Marriage Cases, S147999, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 15, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: By excluding same-sex couples from the designation of marriage, Fam. Code §§ 300 and 308.5, violated Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 7 because the fundamental civil right to marry applied without regard to sexual orientation and the state did not have a compelling interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples.

3. Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, S124179 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 1, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: A lesbian couple had a marital status discrimination claim against a county club that allowed spouses but not domestic partners to golf with a member spouse on an unlimited basis; the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in favor of married couples and against domestic partners registered under California's Domestic Partner Act of 2003.

4. Strong v. State Bd. of Equalization, C052818, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, October 2, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: Transfers of property between registered domestic partners could be excluded from the scope of "change in ownership" for property tax reassessment because the California Legislature had the authority to create exclusions from the general definition for rational policy reasons. Propositions 13 and 58 did not require a constitutional amendment.

5. In re Marriage Cases, A110449, A110450, A110451, A110463, A110651, A110652 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, October 5, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: Constitutionality of California's marriage laws, specifically Fam. Code, §§ 300 & 308.5, was reviewed under the rational basis test. In upholding their constitutionality, appellate court concluded that the State's historical definition of marriage did not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class.

6. Velez v. Smith, A110868 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, September 12, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: The dissolution provisions of the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 did not apply to a partnership that was filed in San Francisco because the partnership was not registered with the California Secretary of State pursuant to Fam. Code, § 298.5. Local law and the Domestic Partner Act were not equivalent.

7. Knight v. Superior Court, C048378 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: Enactment of Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5, providing that registered domestic partners had the same rights and obligations as spouses, was not an improper legislative amendment to an initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Because the initiative did not address domestic partnership, changing domestic partnership law did not amend it.

8. Bouley v. Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, B168667 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, March 15, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: A domestic partner had standing in a wrongful death action for medical malpractice in his partner's death, which occurred before January 2002, because Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60, as amended in 2002 and 2005, provided standing for domestic partners, and both amendments applied retroactively. Retroactive application did not violate due process.

« Back to Top

Did you find the case you're looking for in these results?
If not, check the available jurisdictions and courts for Free lexisONE Case Searches.