Ohio Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to Cleveland Heights Partner Registry

A. S. L.
September 2005
Lesbian -- Gay Law Notes;Sep2005, p168
The article reports that Ohio's 8th District Appeals Court for Cuyahoga County ruled against a constitutional challenge to the domestic partnership registry that was established in 2003 by the city of Cleveland Heights. The decision in the court case Hicks v. City of Cleveland Heights, was unanimous in rejecting a bid by a dissident city council member to get an injunction against operation of the registry. The Cleveland Heights registry provides official recognition for unmarried partners, but it confers no statutory rights other than to be listed in the registry.


Related Articles

  • Registration as Domestic Partners Required before Unregistration, Says California Court; Local S.F. Registration Not Sufficient to Obtain State DP Benefits. Jacobs, Alan J. // Lesbian -- Gay Law Notes;Oct2006, p192 

    The article reports that a California appellate court has denied a physically-challenged lesbian's permission to end her domestic partnership because she and her lover never entered such a partnership, as defined by the California law. For Velez v. Smith, the lesbian couples had been domestic...

  • Expansion of Domestic Partners' Rights.  // Practical Accountant;Dec2001, Vol. 34 Issue 12, p22 

    Reports on the passage of the California law that expands a domestic partner's rights and benefits. Situations considered as a cause of action for negligence; Provision for a step-parent adoption by a domestic partner of the child.

  • Domestic Partners in California: The Employment and Employee Benefits Implications of AB 205. Johnson, Yana S.; Verrall, Timothy G.; Woodard, Gregory // Venulex Legal Summaries;2004 Q3, p1 

    The article discusses the challenges posed by the developments brought about by the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, often referred to as AB 205, for California employers, particularly those with operations in Massachusetts or Vermont. AB 205 amends the Family...

  • Rome Nixes Gay Partner Registry.  // Echo Magazine;12/27/2007, Vol. 19 Issue 8, p23 

    The article reports that Rome, Italy's City Council has rejected a proposal for a domestic partner registry for couples who choose not to marry. The plan was formulated by Rome's left-of-center coalition government. The plan included benefits such as hospital visitation rights and discounts at...

  • Domestic Partners & Workplace Benefits. Schultz, Dana K. // San Diego Business Journal;7/12/2004, Vol. 25 Issue 28, p21 

    Provides information on domestic partners and workplace benefits in mandated by labor laws in California. Definition of domestic partners and identification of benefits they can receive; Contracts with the state of California; Unemployment benefits; Paid family leave; Crime victim leave;...

  • FAMILY LAW: Cohabitation confers property rights. Reidinger, Paul // ABA Journal;Oct86, Vol. 72 Issue 10, p92 

    Focuses on a decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, which ruled that a couple who lived together for twenty years must divide their jointly acquired property equitably. Breakup of relationship between Norma Jean and Robert Pickens; Comparison of the breakup to the end of a common law...

  • Conference to examine domestic partner benefits. Long, Cynthia D. // Academe;Jul/Aug96, Vol. 82 Issue 4, p8 

    Announces the holding of the third annual Conference on Domestic Partner Benefits on October 17-18, 1996 in Chicago, Illinois. University of Illinois as the sponsor of the conference; Special presentations.

  • California Substantially Expands Domestic Partner Rights. Leonard, Arthur S. // Lesbian -- Gay Law Notes;Oct2003, p162 

    Reports on California Governor, Gray Davis' decision to sign into law A.B. 205, a bill that expands the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners. Implication of the governor's move on same-sex partners in the state; Provisions of the legislation.

  • State Law Considered for QDROs for Domestic Partners. Manganaro, John // Plan Sponsor News;2014, p73 

    The article focuses on the decision of the Alaska Supreme Court to provide unmarried domestic partners to have a right to retirement benefits through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Topis include the move of the court to not to consider insurance death benefits and 401(k) retirement...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics