Leave a Comment Sagesse
Nevada Gov. Sandoval moves to dismiss Lambda Legal’s lawsuit
May 17, 2012
Motion claims lack of jurisdiction, citing that old chestnut Baker v. Nelson. The brief also hilariously mis-cites Perry v. Brown as Perry v. Nelson.
May 17, 2012
Motion claims lack of jurisdiction, citing that old chestnut Baker v. Nelson. The brief also hilariously mis-cites Perry v. Brown as Perry v. Nelson.
Religious Right’s Top Anti-Gay ‘Researcher’... President Obama’s Gay Marriage Goof...
Welcome to Equality on Trial!
Got suggestions? Questions? Notice bugs? Email us here.
Want to submit a guest piece for publication on Equality On Trial? Submit your piece with your byline, title and any appropriate links (and HTML if possible) to: equalityontrial [at] couragecampaign [dot] org.
Get even more LGBT equality courtroom news on Facebook and Twitter!
Sign-up for updates from the Courage Campaign Institute on LGBT courtroom news, including breaking-news alerts.
10 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Larry | May 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Why does the last page say that this was filed with the Clerk of the 9th Circuit when it's only at the district level yet?
2.
Kathleen | May 17, 2012 at 3:25 pm
I have no idea.
3.
Kathleen | May 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm
AFAIK, this placed on the case docket through the electronic filing system. Maybe the attorney used a boiler plate and forgot to change the language?
4.
Sam | May 17, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I love how they only cite the concurrence/dissent–and not the majority opinion! Someone doesn't understand what "precedent" and "higher courts" means.
I don't expect the District Judge to do anything with this till we know what happens with Perry, though.
5.
misken | May 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm
This reads like a weak motion to dismiss to me, especially with that laughable mis-cite with Perry.
6.
Kathleen | May 17, 2012 at 8:55 pm
It also states that plaintiffs allege violations of both the 5th and 14th Amendments. Which, of course, they don't, as the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment only applies to the federal government, not the individual states.
7.
AnonyGrl | May 18, 2012 at 7:29 am
Wierd! It looks like this was written by someone who WANTS it to be rejected.
8.
MightyAcorn | May 18, 2012 at 8:08 am
Or yet another tragic case of Drinking and Filing.
9.
Straight Dave | May 18, 2012 at 10:58 am
I think it must have been that poor hapless Imperial Country lawyer who is suddenly scrambling to find some work to do. I hate to pile on, but this was embarrassing to the profession.
10.
Kathleen | May 18, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I just corrected a typo I had in the title of this post. Thankfully, I wasn't filing with the court.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.