 |
 |
 |
January 2009 Newsletter |
 |
|
|
 | Back to Square One: The Effect of a Ballot Measure on the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry in California
By SONIA TANDON, ESQ. |
|
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court, in In re Marriage Cases, ruled that banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, making same-sex marriage in California legal. Immediately thereafter, thousands of gay and lesbian couples headed to the courts of California to legally get married - something they had waited seemingly a lifetime to do. However, their sense of triumph was short-lived when same-sex marriage opponents placed a constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot to define marriage as between man and woman. This ballot measure came to be known as Proposition 8 and its official ballot title was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The text of Proposition 8 to be added to the state's constitution was: "Only marriage between man and woman is valid or recognized in California."
[Read More]
|
|
| Why Federal Preemption Could Put Us At Greater Risk
By DEBORAH GUTIERREZ, ESQ. |
|
On February 20, 2008, the Supreme Court waged into the controversial waters of the federal preemption debate issuing a decision that effectively shields medical device manufacturers from lawsuits brought by injured patients in state court. In Riegel v. Medtronic,1 the wife of a man who died after a balloon catheter burst causing his death sued Medtronic, the manufacturer of the medical device for damages. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit finding that an express provision in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, preempts state-law claims seeking damages for injuries caused by medical devices that received premarket approval from the FDA. Medtronic was successful in its preemption argument because the law that grants the FDA authority to regulate medical devices contains a clause stating that rules imposed on medical device manufacturers are preempted by federal regulations. Although the preemption clause is silent on state-tort law actions, the Supreme Court interpreted the preemption clause broadly to include such actions.
[Read More]
|
|
| CAFA: Is There a Way to Stay in State Court?
By LOURDES DEARMAS, ESQ. |
|
Traditionally, class actions proceeded in federal court if the claims of the class arose under federal law, regardless of the citizenship of the parties. If the claims arose under state law, a class action needed to meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction (complete diversity and a minimum amount in controversy), before it could be removed to federal court.
[Read More]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
