§Why CasetextPricing

Ramsay et al v. Dalrymple et al

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

75 Cited authorities

  1. Santosky v. Kramer

    455 U.S. 745 (1982)   Cited 8,875 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"

  2. Collins v. Harker Heights

    503 U.S. 115 (1992)   Cited 4,988 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1983 "does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law"

  3. Washington v. Glucksberg

    521 U.S. 702 (1997)   Cited 2,711 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide

  4. Heller v. Doe

    509 U.S. 312 (1993)   Cited 2,372 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"

  5. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.

    508 U.S. 307 (1993)   Cited 2,275 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"

  6. Lawrence v. Texas

    539 U.S. 558 (2003)   Cited 1,170 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding statute that criminalizes two persons of same sex engaging in intimate sexual conduct unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

  7. Nordlinger v. Hahn

    505 U.S. 1 (1992)   Cited 1,737 times
    Holding that the legislature need not "actually articulate at any time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification"

  8. Romer v. Evans

    517 U.S. 620 (1996)   Cited 1,273 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding unlawful a state law that precluded local ordinances from protecting homosexuals from discrimination because it "seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects"

  9. United States v. Windsor

    570 U.S. 744 (2013)   Cited 687 times   93 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment a federal law recognizing opposite-sex-sex but not same-sex marriages because its "principal purpose [was] to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency"

  10. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

    512 U.S. 622 (1994)   Cited 1,325 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that rules that distinguish "based only upon the manner in which speakers transmit their messages to viewers, and not upon the messages they carry" are content-neutral

  11. Section 14-03-01 - What constitutes marriage - Spouse defined

    N.D. Cent. Code § 14-03-01   Cited 3 times
    Providing only marriages entered into pursuant to state law are valid

  12. Section 14-03-08 - Foreign marriages recognized - Exception

    N.D. Cent. Code § 14-03-08   Cited 3 times

    Except when residents of this state contract a marriage in another state which is prohibited under the laws of this state, all marriages contracted outside this state, which are valid according to the laws of the state or country where contracted, are valid in this state. This section applies only to a marriage contracted in another state or country which is between one man and one woman as husband and wife. N.D.C.C. § 14-03-08