Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pennsylvania began issuing same-sex marriage licenses a year before the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (see the article in this issueby Frank Gulino) as a result of the Pennsylvania U.S. District Court case Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F. Supp. 2d 410, 420 (M.D. Pa. 2014). Prior to Whitewood' same-sex couples in Pennsylvania could not obtain a marriage license, and same-sex marriages that occurred in another state were not recognized in Pennsylvania. Consequently, courts in Pennsylvania generally would not dissolve legally established same-sex marriages that occurred in other states. This caused serious problems for same-sex couples who entered into a marriage in another state and could not dissolve their relationship in Pennsylvania. Ordinarily, the same-sex couple could not go back to the state in which they were married to get a divorce because, in order to obtain a divorce, most states require a person to be a resident of that state for a substantial amount of time. Thus, same-sex couples in Pennsylvania were left with very limited options to dissolve their relationship legally.
Although same-sex marriages and divorces can now be granted anywhere in the country, there are a few unanswered questions in Pennsylvania regarding how legal relationships between same-sex couples ' that are not marriages ' should be treated. More specifically, it is unclear whether or not Pennsylvania, a state that does not make state-wide civil unions and/or domestic partnerships available, will dissolve them. In addition, there is a question as to whether a prior civil union or domestic partnership will be counted in determining the property basis for equitable distribution for couples who subsequently marry the same partner with whom they were in a civil union or domestic partnership.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.