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 or section
Like this
49Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CA9Doc Imperial 8

CA9Doc Imperial 8

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,788 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
Imperial County's Opening Brief, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed 9/17/2010.
Imperial County's Opening Brief, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed 9/17/2010.

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Sep 18, 2010
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

01/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
Nos. 10-16751UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 
______________________________________________________
KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.
 Defendants.
______________________________________________________
O
N
A
PPEAL FROM
U
NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
 
FOR THE
N
ORTHERN
D
ISTRICT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
 C
IVIL
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
09-cv-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker)
______________________________________________________MOVANT-APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF
___________________________________________________________ADVOCATES FOR FAITH AND FREEDOMRobert H. Tyler, CA Bar No. 179572Jennifer L. Monk, CA Bar No. 24551224910 Las Brisas Road, Suite 110Murrieta, CA 92562Telephone: (951) 304-7583Facsimile: (951) 600-4996rtyler@faith-freedom.com jmonk@faith-freedom.com
 Attorneys for Movant-Appellants
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THECOUNTY OF IMPERIAL, and ISABEL VARGAS
Case: 10-16751 09/17/2010 Page: 1 of 77 ID: 7479050 DktEntry: 8
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS
........................................................................................i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
..................................................................................v
 
INTRODUCTION
....................................................................................................1
 
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
......................................................................1
 
PRIMARY AUTHORITY
.......................................................................................2
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW
.....................................................................................2
 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
............................................................................3
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
...............................................................................3
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS
......................................................................................5
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
...............................................................................5
 
ARGUMENT
............................................................................................................7
 
I.
 
THE COUNTY OF IMPERIAL HAS STANDING TOAPPEAL
...............................................................................................7
 
A.
 
The County Is Entitled to Intervene As Of Right................10
 
1.
 
The County timely filed The Motion toIntervene
........................................................................11
 
2.
 
The County, Board of Supervisors, and DeputyClerk Vargas have a significantly protectableinterest in the subject of this action
............................14
 
Case: 10-16751 09/17/2010 Page: 2 of 77 ID: 7479050 DktEntry: 8
 
 
ii
 
a.
 
Deputy Clerk Vargas has a significantlyprotectable interest
.......................................................15
 
b.
 
The Board of Supervisors and County of Imperial Have a significantly protectableinterest
............................................................................21
 
3.
 
The District Court’s ruling impaired theCounty’s significantly protectable interest
................24
 
4.
The existing parties will not adequately represent theCounty’s interests
.............................
Error! Bookmark not defined.
 
B.
 
Alternatively, The County Is Entitled To PermissiveIntervention.............................................................................27
 
C.
 
Because The District Court Erred In DenyingIntervention, This Court May Proceed To ConsiderThe Merits Of The Appeals....................................................29
 
II.
 
THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN
 BAKER V. NELSON 
MANDATES REVERSAL
..............................................30
 
III.
 
PROPOSITION 8 IS CONSTITUTIONAL WITHIN THECONFINES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
...............33
 
A.
 
The Substantive Due Process Clause Does Not RenderProposition 8 Unconstitutional..............................................34
 
Case: 10-16751 09/17/2010 Page: 3 of 77 ID: 7479050 DktEntry: 8

Activity (49)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Gib Wallis liked this
Gib Wallis liked this
Gib Wallis liked this
Gib Wallis liked this
Gib Wallis 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)//-->