Bostic et al v. McDonnell et al
| Tony C. London and Timothy B. Bostic |
| Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Robert F. McDonnell, George E. Schaefer, III and Commonwealth Of Va. |
| 2:2013cv00395 |
| July 18, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Norfolk Office |
| Norfolk City |
| Arenda L. Wright Allen |
| Lawrence R. Leonard |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
136
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25), GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 27) and DENIES Defendant Schaefer's and Intervenor-Defendant's Mot ions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 38 and 40). The Court ENJOINS the Commonwealth from enforcing Sections 20-45.2 and 20-45.3 of the Virginia Code and Article I, § 15-A of the Virginia Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same gender. The Court finds Va. Const. Art. I, § 15-A, Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful sam e-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In accordance with the Supreme Cour t's issuance of a stay in Herbert v. Kitchen, and consistent with the reasoning provided in Bishop, this Court stays execution of this injunction pending the final disposition of any appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Intervenor-Defendant are ordered to file proposed Judgments for the Court's consideration. These proposals shall be filed by March 14, 2014. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and filed on 2/14/14. Copies distributed to all parties 2/14/14. (ldab, )
|
|
Filing
135
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25), GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 27) and DENIES Defendant Schaefer's and Intervenor-Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment ( ECF Nos. 38 and 40). The Court ENJOINS the Commonwealth from enforcing Sections 20-45.2 and 20-45.3 of the Virginia Code and Article I, § 15-A of the Virginia Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another pe rson of the same gender. The Court finds Va. Const. Art. I, § 15-A, Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from oth er jurisdictions unconstitutional. These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In accordance with the Supreme Court's issuance of a stay in Herbert v. Kitchen, and consistent with the reasoning provided in Bishop, this Court stays execution of this injunction pending the final disposition of any appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendant s, and Intervenor-Defendant are ordered to file proposed Judgments for the Court's consideration. These proposals shall be filed by March 14, 2014. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and filed on 2/13/14. Copies distributed to all parties 2/13/14. (ldab, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
