Legal Opinion

Madrone v. Madrone

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 13, 2015No. 1201759CV; A154894PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHadlock, J.

In this case, we consider how to determine whether an unmarried same-sex couple is similarly situated to a married opposite-sex couple for purposes of ORS 109.243 and, thus, entitled to the privilege granted by that statute. ORS 109.243 creates parentage in the husband of a woman who bears a child conceived by artificial insemination if the husband consented to that insemination. The statute’s effect is automatic; it requires no judicial or administrative filings or proceedings. In Shineovich and Kemp, 229 Or App 670, 214 P3d 29, rev den, 347 Or 365 (2009), we held that the statute violated…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Hewitt v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences UniversityCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1998

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mabry v. MabryMichigan Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Sato v. Hanlon (In re Hanlon)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · 2016
  3. Candelaria v. KellyNevada Supreme Court · 2023
  4. Carrie Pueblo v. Rachel HaasMichigan Supreme Court · 2023
  5. Ferry v. De Longhi America Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API