Legal Opinion
Kristin Perry v. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 4, 2011No. 10-16696, 10-16751PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
The County of Imperial, its Board of Supervisors, and a Deputy Clerk for the County appeal the denial of their motion to intervene in this case concerning the constitutionality under the United States Constitution of Article I, section 7.5 of the California Constitution (“Proposition 8”). Concurrently, they assert their standing to appeal on the merits the district court order holding Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. We affirm the denial of the intervention motion, although on different grounds from those relied upon by the district court, and correspondingly we dismiss the appeal…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- LSO, Ltd. v. StrohCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Donnelly v. GlickmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Nancy Anne Spangler, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Pasadena City Board of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Perry v. Proposition 8 Official ProponentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Prete v. BradburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by36 opinions
- Perry v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- H. Davis v. Lifetime Capital, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
- Floyd v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Laroe Estates, Inc. v. Town of ChesterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2016
- Magee v. BoydSupreme Court of Alabama · 2015
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.