The impact of realistic estrangement on child custody matters
In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
¿Quién fue "la mujer del César"?
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 7 - Invisible Scars: The Impact of Coercive Control on Children
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 5 - Parallel Proceedings: The Intersection of Criminal Law and Family Law
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 4 - Splitting Costs: Forensic Accounting in Divorce
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 1 - The Truth Behind Coercive Control
Jewish Divorce Talk: Episode 8 - Narcissism and Parental Alienation Talk
Let's Talk About the Anatomy of a Prenuptial Agreement
Jewish Divorce Talk: Episode 6 - “Let’s Gett Serious” Talk
Let's Talk About Common Law Marriage
The $6 Million Wedding
Marriage and Divorce Considerations for Health Care Providers
Let's Talk Family Law 101
Let's Talk Family Law Taxes
Estate Planning & Family Law: How To Protect Your Assets For Future Generations
End Game in the Fight Over Same Sex Marriage?
What is a petition for dissolution of marriage and what does it mean to serve the petition?
Protecting Separate Property in Arizona: Basic Principles
Polsinelli Podcast - Defense of Marriage Act
Oklahoma remains one of about only a dozen states that recognize common law marriages. Despite the Legislature’s sporadic attempts to effectively abolish such marriages, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has recently determined in...more
On June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that it is unconstitutional for a state to ban same-sex couples from exercising the fundamental right to marry. As a result of this...more
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision inUnited States v. Windsor overturning Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raised several questions regarding the federal tax treatment of same-sex couples. (See Holland &...more
We recently sent an E-Alert on what the recent Supreme Court same-sex marriage decisions mean for employers, but what do those decisions mean for the couples themselves in terms of employer and tax benefits?...more
Last month, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act's requirement that only opposite-sex marriages may be recognized for federal law purposes. The Court's decision became effective July 21,...more
On June 26, 2013, in U.S. v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. This decision will...more
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal law purposes to mean opposite-sex marriage, is unconstitutional (United States v. Windsor, 2013 WL...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which required the federal government to deny married same-sex couples the rights and benefits provided to...more
In Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal laws to ignore same-sex marriages that are legally entered into...more
With the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013, same–sex couples legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, and who reside in such a state, are now governed by...more
On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, holding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages for purposes of...more
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor, you may have been wondering, what are all those “federal benefits now afforded to same-sex couples” that I keep hearing about? Well, one huge...more
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages. ...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Windsor v. United States, No. 12-307. The Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision) that the section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that required federal...more
The United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision on June 26, 2013 in United States v. Windsor that struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional has far reaching implications for employee...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal law that defined "marriage" as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex who is a...more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in U.S. v. Windsor concerning same-sex marriage. This WSGR Alert covers the impact of the ruling on employee benefit plans and provides action items for employers....more
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in United States v. Windsor. The Court ruled that a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had denied federal benefits to...more
The United States Supreme Court ruled on June 26 in United States v. Windsor, U.S., No 12-307, that the definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” contained in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) excluding same-sex partners are a...more