law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/13-4178/13-4178-2014-06-25.html
Preview meta tags from the law.justia.com website.
Linked Hostnames
29- 49 links towww.justia.com
- 19 links tolaw.justia.com
- 3 links toblawgsearch.justia.com
- 3 links towww.google.com
- 2 links toaccounts.justia.com
- 2 links toconnect.justia.com
- 2 links tolawyers.justia.com
- 2 links topolicies.google.com
Thumbnail
Search Engine Appearance
Kitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. 2014)
Several Utah residents and same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Utah and were denied. They filed suit against the Governor, the Attorney General of Utah and the Clerk of Sale Lake County, all in their official capacities, challenging provisions of Utah law relating to same-sex marriage. Utah Code 30-1-2(5) included among the marriages that were "prohibited and declared void," those "between persons of the same sex." The Legislature referred a proposed constitutional amendment, known as Amendment 3, to Utah's voters (Amendment 3 passed with approximately 66% of the vote and became section 29 of Article I of the Utah Constitution). Plaintiffs alleged that Amendment 3 violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving them of the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choosing and to have such a marriage recognized. They also claimed that Amendment 3 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs raised their claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking both a declaratory judgment that Amendment 3 was unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that "[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual's ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family." Furthermore, the court held that Amendment 3 denied plaintiffs equal protection because it classified based on sex and sexual orientation without a rational basis. It declared Amendment 3 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions. The Governor and Attorney General filed a timely notice of appeal and moved to stay the district court's decision. Both the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a stay. The Supreme Court, however, granted a stay of the district court's injunction pending final disposition of the appeal by the Tenth Circuit. Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not deny a citizen benefit of the laws based solely on the sex of the person the citizen chooses to marry.
Bing
Kitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. 2014)
Several Utah residents and same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Utah and were denied. They filed suit against the Governor, the Attorney General of Utah and the Clerk of Sale Lake County, all in their official capacities, challenging provisions of Utah law relating to same-sex marriage. Utah Code 30-1-2(5) included among the marriages that were "prohibited and declared void," those "between persons of the same sex." The Legislature referred a proposed constitutional amendment, known as Amendment 3, to Utah's voters (Amendment 3 passed with approximately 66% of the vote and became section 29 of Article I of the Utah Constitution). Plaintiffs alleged that Amendment 3 violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving them of the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choosing and to have such a marriage recognized. They also claimed that Amendment 3 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs raised their claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking both a declaratory judgment that Amendment 3 was unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that "[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual's ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family." Furthermore, the court held that Amendment 3 denied plaintiffs equal protection because it classified based on sex and sexual orientation without a rational basis. It declared Amendment 3 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions. The Governor and Attorney General filed a timely notice of appeal and moved to stay the district court's decision. Both the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a stay. The Supreme Court, however, granted a stay of the district court's injunction pending final disposition of the appeal by the Tenth Circuit. Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not deny a citizen benefit of the laws based solely on the sex of the person the citizen chooses to marry.
DuckDuckGo
Kitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. 2014)
Several Utah residents and same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Utah and were denied. They filed suit against the Governor, the Attorney General of Utah and the Clerk of Sale Lake County, all in their official capacities, challenging provisions of Utah law relating to same-sex marriage. Utah Code 30-1-2(5) included among the marriages that were "prohibited and declared void," those "between persons of the same sex." The Legislature referred a proposed constitutional amendment, known as Amendment 3, to Utah's voters (Amendment 3 passed with approximately 66% of the vote and became section 29 of Article I of the Utah Constitution). Plaintiffs alleged that Amendment 3 violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving them of the fundamental liberty to marry the person of their choosing and to have such a marriage recognized. They also claimed that Amendment 3 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs raised their claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking both a declaratory judgment that Amendment 3 was unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that "[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual's ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family." Furthermore, the court held that Amendment 3 denied plaintiffs equal protection because it classified based on sex and sexual orientation without a rational basis. It declared Amendment 3 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions. The Governor and Attorney General filed a timely notice of appeal and moved to stay the district court's decision. Both the district court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a stay. The Supreme Court, however, granted a stay of the district court's injunction pending final disposition of the appeal by the Tenth Circuit. Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, the Tenth Circuit concluded that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not deny a citizen benefit of the laws based solely on the sex of the person the citizen chooses to marry.
General Meta Tags
11- titleKitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. 2014) :: Justia
- viewportwidth=device-width, initial-scale=1.0
- charsetutf-8
- robotsindex,follow
- referrerunsafe-url
Open Graph Meta Tags
8- og:titleKitchen, et al v. Herbert, et al, No. 13-4178 (10th Cir. 2014)
- og:typearticle
- og:site_nameJustia Law
- og:imagehttps://justatic.com/v/20240826101229/shared/images/social-media/law.jpg
- og:admins656268335,686786921,25900864
Link Tags
17- apple-touch-icon//justatic.com/v/20240826101229/shared/images/justia/jbutton_flat_57.png
- apple-touch-icon//justatic.com/v/20240826101229/shared/images/justia/jbutton_flat_72.png
- apple-touch-icon//justatic.com/v/20240826101229/shared/images/justia/jbutton_flat_114.png
- apple-touch-icon//justatic.com/v/20240826101229/shared/images/justia/jbutton_flat_144.png
- apple-touch-icon-precomposed//justatic.com/v/20240826101229/shared/images/justia/jbutton_3d_57.png
Links
104- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kitchen%2C+et+al+v.+Herbert%2C+et+al&as_sdt=2006
- http://www.bing.com/search?q=Kitchen%2C+et+al+v.+Herbert%2C+et+al
- https://accounts.justia.com
- https://accounts.justia.com/signin?destination=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fappellate-courts%2Fca10%2F13-4178%2F13-4178-2014-06-25.html
- https://answers.justia.com