lexisONE® Community

1. Strauss v. Horton, S168047, S168066, S168078, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: California Supreme Court concluded that Proposition 8, which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment, not an impermissible revision, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under an "inalienable rights" theory.

2. San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, S131818 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 18, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: City of San Francisco did not have to arbitrate with a firefighters' union before requiring the use of statistically valid grouping for certification of candidates for promotion. The new rule was reasonably related to ensuring compliance with antidiscrimination laws and thus was exempt from arbitration under S.F. Charter, § A8.590-5(g)(3).

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. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, S122923, S122865 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 12, 2004, Filed

OVERVIEW: Same-sex marriages performed by local officials were void from inception because state law defined marriage as being between man and woman; officials lacked authority to decline to enforce laws based on their opinion that they were unconstitutional.

5. Coral Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, A107803 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR, April 18, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: A decision to strike down race and gender preferences was remanded, even though Cal. Const., art. I, § 31, validly prohibited such preferences, because trial court failed to address whether the particular ordinance was mandated by Fourteenth Amendment as a narrowly tailored program to remedy ongoing, pervasive discrimination in public contracting.

6. Ley v. State of California, B165311 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, January 20, 2004, Filed

OVERVIEW: Patient at Forensic Conditional Release Program did not have a cause of action against State and County officials after his roommate attacked him with a knife. Defendants had absolute immunity, and the evidence did not support a civil rights claim.

7. Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service, No. B115766. , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, May 31, 2000, Decided

OVERVIEW: The prohibition against charging a copayment because of sex did not include charging a copayment because of pregnancy.

8. FREDENBURG v. CITY OF FREMONT, A104703, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 11, 2004, Filed

9. SIFUENTES v. STATE, E032846, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, February 13, 2004, Filed

10. SANCHEZ v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, B163744, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN, January 14, 2004, Filed

« 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.