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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State of Oregon and Multnomah County Defendants' Response to NOM's Application to US Supreme Court for Stay of Proceedings in Geiger v. Kitzhaber

State of Oregon and Multnomah County Defendants' Response to NOM's Application to US Supreme Court for Stay of Proceedings in Geiger v. Kitzhaber

Ratings: (0)|Views: 13 |Likes:
Published by Law Works LLC
Brief of State of Oregon and Multnomah County Defendants Response to NOM's Application to US Supreme Court for Stay of Proceedings in Geiger v. Kitzhaber
Brief of State of Oregon and Multnomah County Defendants Response to NOM's Application to US Supreme Court for Stay of Proceedings in Geiger v. Kitzhaber

More info:

Published by: Law Works LLC on Jun 02, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

12/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
No. 13A1173
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, INC., on behalf of its Oregon members,
Applicant,
v.
DEANNA L. GEIGER; JANINE M. NELSON; ROBERT DUEHMIG; WILLIAM GRIESAR; PAUL RUMMELL; BENJAMIN WEST; LISA CHICKADONZ; CHRISTINE TANNER; BASIC RIGHTS EDUCATION FUND,
Respondents Plaintiffs),
and, JOHN KITZHABER, in his official capacity as Governor of Oregon; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Attorney General of Oregon; JENNIFER WOODWARD, in her official capacity as State Registrar, Center for Health Statistics, Oregon Health Authority; RANDY WALRUFF, in his official capacity as Multnomah County Assessor,
Respondents Defendants).
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE ANTHONY KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Continued...
 
ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM 753239 Attorney General of Oregon
* ANNA M. JOYCE 013112
Solicitor General
MARY H. WILLIAMS 911241
Special Assistant Attorney General 1162 Court Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 378-4402 Counsel for Respondents (Defendants) John Kitzhaber, Ellen Rosenblum, Jennifer Woodward JENNY M. MADKOUR 982980 KATHERINE VON TER STEGGE 032300 Office of the Multnomah County Attorney
501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97214 Telephone: (503) 988-3138 Counsel for Respondent (Defendant) Randy Walruff
* Counsel of Record
5/14
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
OM's burden to obtain relief from this Court is extremely heavy.
II.
OM has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that this Court will grant certiorari in this case. 1. OM has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that this Court will grant certiorari in this case with respect to NOM's motion to intervene.
a.
NOM has failed to establish a reasonable probability
that this Court would grant certiorari to review a discretionary ruling when there is no dispute about the legal standard the district court applied.
b.
NOM has failed to establish a reasonable probability
that this Court would grant certiorari to review the
district court's denial of NOM's motion to intervene because none of NOM's members had a significant protectable interest in the litigation
2.
OM has failed to establish a reasonable probability that
this Court will grant certiorari to consider the merits of the
district court's opinion and judgment
III. NOM has failed to demonstrate a fair prospect that this Court
will reverse either the district court's denial of NOM's motion to intervene or the district court's judgment on the merits.
14 1.
OM has failed to demonstrate a fair prospect of success on its challenge to the district court's denial of NOM's
motion to intervene as untimely and as not presenting a proposed intervenor with a significant protectable interest in
the litigation. 4
a.
OM has failed to establish that it has a chance of successfully reversing the district court's discretionary determination that NOM's motion to intervene was
untimely.
5

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)//-->