Laws Lawyers Find Laws Legal Forms State Laws Bills
Home » Find Laws » Laws » Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Listen
The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s - 14th Amendment Rights:Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sexThe Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United StatesThe Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue bias and damageThe Case Profile of Perry v. SchwarzeneggerThe following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’:Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United StatesLegal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standardAccused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaInvolved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. SchwarzeneggerThe State of California; Defendant - Perry v. SchwarzeneggerVerdict Delivered:Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial:The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age
Font Size: AAA
Loading...
  • Play
  • Pause
  • Volume:
  • Mute
  • Half
  • Max
  • Perry V Schwarzenegger

    The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

    In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s - 14th Amendment Rights:

    Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

    The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

    The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue bias and damage

    The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

    The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’:

    Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

    Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

    Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

    Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

    Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

    California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

    Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

    Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

    Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

    Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

    The State of California; Defendant - Perry v. Schwarzenegger

    Verdict Delivered:

    Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial:

    The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

    Related Articles

    Link To This Page

    Comments

    Guide to Finding a Lawyer
    Tips