Ninth Circuit· 9/6/2011
Diaz v. Brewer
Citations
- 656 F.3d 1008
- 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18467
- 113 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 248
- 2011 WL 3890755
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that unlike their same- 26 sex counterparts, opposite-sex couples who “wish[ed] to retain their current family health 27 benefits could alter their status—marry—to do so”
- noting that \a bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group [is] not [a] legitimate state interest\ (citation and quotation omitted)
- rejecting Arizona’s attempt to exclude same-sex partners from state-employee health-care benefits based on financial concerns because Arizona had “not provided any [supporting] evidence”
- noting evidence that the state spent a minimal amount on domestic partners’ benefits
- law 19 limiting benefits to married couples discriminated against same-sex couples, who legally could 20 not marry in Arizona, for no legitimate purpose
- cost concerns could not justify denying insurance 7 coverage to same-sex couples under rational basis review
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mary M. Schroeder and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges, and Mark W. Bennett, District Judge
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Latta v. OtterD. Idaho· 2014-05-13· cited 36×
- Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel ManagementN.D. California· 2012-02-22· cited 27×
- Glossip v. Missouri Department of Transportation & Highway Patrol Employees' Retirement SystemSupreme Court of Missouri· 2013-10-29· cited 17×
- Jackson v. AbercrombieD. Hawaii· 2012-08-08· cited 16×
- Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. BrewerD. Arizona· 2013-05-16· cited 14×
- Bassett v. SnyderE.D. Michigan· 2013-06-28· cited 14×
- Ramos v. NielsenN.D. California· 2018-08-06· cited 13×
- Donaldson v. StateMontana Supreme Court· 2012-12-17· cited 13×
- Paul v. DidizianDistrict of Columbia· 2011-10-19· cited 10×
- Puente Arizona v. ArpaioD. Arizona· 2015-01-05· cited 9×
- Dragovich v. United States Department of the TreasuryN.D. California· 2012-05-24· cited 6×
- Diaz v. BrewerNinth Circuit· 2012-04-03· cited 3×
- Dragovich v. United States Department of the TreasuryN.D. California· 2012-01-26· cited 3×
- Celec v. Edinboro UniversityW.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-09-18· cited 2×
- Bassett v. SnyderE.D. Michigan· 2014-11-12· cited 1×
- Youth Justice Coalition v. City of Los AngelesC.D. California· 2017-09-07· cited 1×
- Paul v. Gov't of the D.C.D.C. Circuit· 2018-06-21· cited 1×
- Cooper-Harris v. United StatesC.D. California· 2013-08-29· cited 1×
- Donaldson v. State of MontanaMontana Supreme Court· 2012-12-17
- Paul v. Government of the District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2018-06-21
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court· 2008-11-12· cited 11,986×
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court· 1985-07-01· cited 7,112×
- Hebbe v. PlilerNinth Circuit· 2010-07-29· cited 4,042×
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court· 1972-03-22· cited 1,851×
- Lawrence v. TexasSupreme Court· 2003-06-26· cited 1,452×
- United States Department of Agriculture v. MorenoSupreme Court· 1973-06-25· cited 871×
- Stormans, Inc. v. SeleckyNinth Circuit· 2009-10-28· cited 752×
- Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1949-01-31· cited 673×
- Johnson v. CouturierNinth Circuit· 2009-07-27· cited 384×
- Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. HardinNinth Circuit· 2000-09-11· cited 75×
- Collins v. BrewerD. Arizona· 2010-07-23· cited 10×
Other cases named Diaz v. Brewer
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.