Juan Antonia Godin-Mendoza Case

The primary legal question facing the court is whether or not Ms Jonah and Mr White’s relationships can be classified and recognised as de-facto in accordance with the definition produced in section 4AA (1) of the Act. In order for the court to decide, it must be established if the pair’s relationships was one of a “genuine domestic basis”. The court must analyse Murphy J’s decision that the parties did not hold a “reputation” as a coupledom. Whether or not the feelings of both parties towards the grounds of their relationship was mutual is questioned. Furthermore, the appeal highlights that in accordance with the Act and precedence of Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343, it is possible for a marriage and a de-facto relationship to exist simultaneously, thus the court must address whether or not this fact is relevant to the decision.

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

Describe the individual of group that initiated the case and their role in the case. Provide background information about them.

4) The Supreme Court ruled on Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents in 1950, and on Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. What would you argue were the most important distinctions between the two 1950 cases, on the

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

To properly understand the events a chronological descripcion of the litigation is to be provided.

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

This essay will consider law reform in the context of homosexual relationships between men. In particular, it will look at the various influencing Acts, establish the different legal principles and scrutinise how the changing social attitudes have affected the development of this law. It will only focus on the broader context and will not include other influencing changes such as LGBT adoption laws, discrimination etc. In order to reach a conclusion of the effects of these …. secondary sources such as books and the Westlaw website.

“Q1. Explain briefly, the statute(s) (law or act) in question in your case, the facts of the case, and why the parties were in court. What was each party asking the court to do?”

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide? Why?

The story of Diana Whipple a coach and lacrosse payer, she lived in San Francisco. The article talks about how Diane’s same sex partner Sharon Smith wasn’t able to sue the owner of the two large dogs that brutally attacked and mauled Mrs. Whipple to death just outside of their apartment building. Along with telling the story about these two women it details the importance of tort law for same sex couples with our changing times; although with the new legislation that has taken place over the last year this would not be an issue

As a result, prior to the establishment of the 2010 Act, in situations where a property was owned solely by one cohabitant, they had the power to dispose or sell the house without the consent of the other cohabitant. This put cohabitants in a very vulnerable situation. Currently under the 2010 Act , where the cohabitants are qualified cohabitants and if one cohabitant can demonstrate to the court that at the end of the relationship, they were financially dependent on the other partner, they may be able to apply to the court for a Property Adjustment Order. Here the court can order “the transfer by either of the cohabitants to or for the benefit of the other, of specified property in which the cohabitant has an interest either in possession or reversion”

Case Law: In the Goodwin v the United Kingdom case, judges decided that the UK Government ought to oblige the requirements of trans individuals by issuing new birth testaments and allowing marriage to somebody of the inverse sex.

11. The Supreme Court of Appeal uses two arguments in the Paixão case to get around the decision in the Volks case. The court states that it is inapplicable for the court to extend and develop the common law to simply include unmarried heterosexual relationships. The first argument is for practical reasons as it is inadequate for the Road Accident Fund to disprove the appellant’s dependence on a life partnership to support the survival party if a death of a partner had to occur. Second, the extension of legal protection to