Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Prop 8: Proponents' Reply

Prop 8: Proponents' Reply

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,641|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Hollingsworth v. O'Connell et al (Prop 8): Proponents' REPLY IN SUPPORT of its petition to the California Supreme Court requesting a stay to forbid issuance of marriage licenses. Filed July 15, 2013.
Hollingsworth v. O'Connell et al (Prop 8): Proponents' REPLY IN SUPPORT of its petition to the California Supreme Court requesting a stay to forbid issuance of marriage licenses. Filed July 15, 2013.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Equality Case Files on Jul 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Case No. S211990
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,Petitioners,v.PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Auditor-Controller/County Clerk-Recorder of Alameda County, et al.,Respondents,and EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official capacity asGovernor of the State of California, et al.,Real Parties in Interest.
REPLY TO INFORMAL OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FORIMMEDIATE STAY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
David Austin Robert Nimocks+Kellie M. Fiedorek+
A
LLIANCE
D
EFENDING
F
REEDOM
 
801 G Street, NW, Suite 509Washington, D.C. 20001(202) 393-8690; (480) 444-0028 (f)*Byron J. Babione+James A. Campbell+Kenneth J. Connelly+J. Caleb Dalton+
A
LLIANCE
D
EFENDING
F
REEDOM
 
15100 N. 90th StreetScottsdale, Arizona 85260(480) 444-0020; (480) 444-0028 (f)
 bbabione@alliancedefendingfreedom.org
 Andrew P. Pugno(State Bar No. 206587)
L
AW
O
FFICES OF
A
 NDREW
P.
 
P
UGNO
 
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 608-3065; (916) 608-3066 (f)andrew@pugnolaw.comDavid J. Hacker (State Bar No. 249272)
A
LLIANCE
D
EFENDING
F
REEDOM
 
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100Folsom, California 95630(916) 932-2850; (916) 932-2851 (f)Attorneys for Petitioners
+
Pro Hac Vice
Motions filed 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... ii
 
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
 
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 1
 
I.
 
This Petition Raises Important Issues of State Law. .......................... 1
 
II.
 
This Court Should Enter an Immediate Stay to Remain inPlace during the Pendency of these Proceedings. .............................. 4
 
A.
 
Petitioners Are Likely to Prevail on the Merits. ..................... 4
 
B.
 
The Balance of the Relevant Interim Harms Weighs inFavor of Granting the Stay. ..................................................... 8
 
1.
 
Great Interim Harm Will Result If this CourtDenies the Stay and Later Issues the Writ. .................. 8
 
2.
 
 No Interim Harm Will Result If this CourtGrants the Stay and Later Declines to Issue theWrit. ........................................................................... 10
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 13
 
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................... 15
 
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 Butt v. State of California
(1992) 4 Cal.4th 668 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 480,842 P.2d 1240] .................................................................................. 4
 Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson
(9th Cir. 1997) 122 F.3d 718 ..................................................................................................... 8
  Doe v. Gallinot 
(9th Cir. 1981) 657 F.2d 1017 ............................................ 3
  Hollingsworth v. Perry
(June 26, 2013, No. 12-144), ___ U.S. ___ [2013 WL 3196927] ...................................................................... 6, 7
  IT Corporation v. County of Imperial
(1983) 35 Cal.3d 63 [196Cal.Rptr. 715, 672 P.2d 121] ............................................................. 8
  Lewis v. Casey
(1996) 518 U.S. 343 [116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606] .................................................................................................... 3
  Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco
(2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055[17 Cal.Rptr.3d 225, 95 P.3d 459] .............................................. 1, 13
 New Motor Vehicle Board of California v. Orrin W. Fox Co.
(1977)434 U.S. 1345 [98 S.Ct. 359, 54 L.Ed.2d 439] ................................. 9
 Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California. v. McConnell
 (1955) 44 Cal.2d 715 [285 P.2d 636] ................................................ 3
 People v. Gonzalez
(1996) 12 Cal.4th 804 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910P.2d 1366] ......................................................................................... 2
People v. Kelly
(2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222P.3d 186] ........................................................................................... 9
 Perry v. Brown
(2011) 52 Cal.4th 1116 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, 265P.3d 1002] ..................................................................................... 8, 9
 United Railroads of San Francisco v. Superior Court in and for Cityand County of San Francisco
(1916) 172 Cal. 80 [155 P. 463] ........ 4
 United States v. Windsor 
(June 26, 2013, No. 12-307) ___ U.S. ___ [2013 WL 3196928] ........................................................................ 13

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
sfsympa liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->