D. Nevada· 11/26/2012
Sevcik v. Sandoval
Citations
- 911 F. Supp. 2d 996
- 2012 WL 5989662
- 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169643
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that Nevada law prohibiting same-sex marriage was “sexual-orientation based”
- “Because there has never been a right to same-sex marriage in Nevada, Romer and Perry are inapplicable here as to [a same-sex marriage ban].”
- “[B]ecause it is homosexuals who are the target of the distinction here, the level of scrutiny applicable to sexual-orientation-based distinctions applies.”
- “Because there has never been a right to same-sex marriage in Nevada, Romer and Perry are inapplicable here as to [a same-sex marriage ban].”
- “[The political success] the homosexual-rights lobby has achieved ... indicates that the group has great political power. ... In 2012 America, anti-homosexual viewpoints are widely regarded as uncouth.”
- district court adopted recommendation of a magistrate judge
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Obergefell v. HodgesSupreme Court· 2015-06-26· cited 955×
- Bishop v. SmithTenth Circuit· 2014-07-18· cited 114×
- Kitchen v. HerbertD. Utah· 2013-12-20· cited 42×
- Bishop v. United States ex rel. HolderN.D. Oklahoma· 2014-01-14· cited 42×
- Whitewood v. WolfM.D. Pennsylvania· 2014-05-20· cited 41×
- Wolf v. WalkerW.D. Wisconsin· 2014-06-06· cited 34×
- Geiger v. KitzhaberD. Oregon· 2014-05-19· cited 30×
- State ex rel. Alabama Policy InstituteSupreme Court of Alabama· 2015-03-03· cited 22×
- Robicheaux v. CaldwellE.D. Louisiana· 2014-09-03· cited 20×
- McGee v. ColeS.D. West Virginia· 2014-01-29· cited 18×
- Campaign for Southern Equality v. BryantS.D. Mississippi· 2014-11-25· cited 15×
- Bruton v. Gerber Products Co.N.D. California· 2013-09-06· cited 13×
- Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-PadillaD. Puerto Rico· 2014-10-21· cited 11×
- Majors v. JeanesD. Arizona· 2014-09-12· cited 4×
- Rosenbrahn v. DaugaardD. South Dakota· 2014-11-14· cited 4×
- Brandon-Thomas v. Brandon-ThomasDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-04-24· cited 2×
- SUSAN LATTA v. C. L. OTTERNinth Circuit· 2014-10-07
Cites
62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court· 1957-11-18· cited 30,380×
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court· 1992-06-12· cited 24,791×
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court· 1970-06-01· cited 15,427×
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court· 1985-07-01· cited 7,112×
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court· 1976-02-27· cited 4,982×
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court· 1977-01-11· cited 4,496×
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court· 1973-04-23· cited 3,699×
- Washington v. DavisSupreme Court· 1976-06-07· cited 3,450×
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationNinth Circuit· 1990-02-22· cited 2,784×
- Taylor v. ListNinth Circuit· 1989-07-17· cited 2,764×
- Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court· 1982-09-09· cited 2,739×
- Lee v. City Of Los AngelesNinth Circuit· 2001-05-04· cited 2,421×
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-06-01· cited 2,387×
- Sprewell v. Golden State WarriorsNinth Circuit· 2001-09-14· cited 2,313×
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court· 1993-06-24· cited 2,199×
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.