Legal Opinion
Storrs v. Holcomb
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 25, 1996PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Walter J. Relihan, Jr., J.
Two men, proceeding pro se, seek to compel the City Clerk to issue a marriage license to them. The application, while inexact, approximates an action for a declaratory judgment (CPLR 3001) or a special proceeding under CPLR article 78, in the nature of mandamus. Whatever the niceties of pleading, the defendant / respondent has been given adequate notice of the issues and, accordingly, we turn to the merits (Siegel, NY Prac § 563, at 884 [2d ed]).
The right to marry, by opposite sex couples, is protected under the 14th Amendment as a matter of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Zablocki v. RedhailSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Bowers v. HardwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. StormsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Baker v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters v. RutgersNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1997
- Langan v. St. Vincent's HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 2003
- Seymour v. HolcombNew York Supreme Court · 2005
- Shields v. MadiganNew York Supreme Court · 2004
- Storrs v. HolcombAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.