![[sticky entry]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/entry/sticky_entry.png){kind=small}
Sticky: Sticky Post: Intro![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elf had somewhere to throw the results of her obsessive PDF conversion activities. Other people are welcome to join the Kirtsaeng vs Wiley, US Supreme Court
Oral Arguments; Oct 29, 2012
(First Sale Doctrine case)
LINK TO ORIGINAL: Transcript at EFF site
~10,500 words total.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SUPAP KIRTSAENG, DBA
BLUECHRISTINE99
Petitioner
v.
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
No. 11-697
Washington, D.C. Monday, October 29, 2012
The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:05 a.m.
( Appearances )
( Contents )
(11:05 a.m.)
( E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, on behalf of Petitioner )( THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ, on behalf of Respondent )
( MALCOLM L. STEWART, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondent )
( E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, rebuttal on behalf of Petitioner )
Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Final ruling released on August 4, 2010
LINK TO ORIGINAL: www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL (Bookmarked PDF or Word document available on request; just send me a PM with your email address.)
Approx.40,000 words. Formatting may not show a, b, c lists instead of 1, 2, 3. Sorry about that.
( Perry v Schwarzenneger header )
Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.
Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.
Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.
NO. C 09-2292-VRW
KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
VS.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,
San Francisco, California
Wednesday
June 16, 2010
Reported By: Katherin Powell Sullivan, CRR CSR 5812
Debra L. Pas, CRR CSR 1196
Official Reporters – U.S. District Court
Volume 13
Pages 2953 -3115
( Stewart (Proponent) Closing Argument )
