finding "no reason, therefore, to use sex as a proxy for need" where the alimony statute already provided for individualized hearings that took financial circumstances into account
How later courts described this case
- finding "no reason, therefore, to use sex as a proxy for need" where the alimony statute already provided for individualized hearings that took financial circumstances into account
- holding unconstitutional an Alabama statutory scheme of imposing alimony obligations on husbands but not wives as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
- stating that a federal litigant may win a constitutional challenge without ultimately whining the relief he specifically requested
- explaining that to survive intermediate scrutiny, practice must further state’s interest better than would its absence.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Koskinen, 72 F. Supp. 3d 963 (2014)
For this reason, the case plaintiffs cite, Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979), is distinguishable.
Distinguished by In Re Estate of Miltenberger, 482 Mich. 901 (2008)
But Orr is distinguishable for significant reasons that exemplify the differences between the case before us and the cases on which the dissent relies.
Distinguished by Polykoff v. Collins, 816 F.2d 1326 (1987)
See Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 278 n. 8, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 1111 n. 8, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979) (holding that Pullman is inapplicable when the state court has already considered the issue).
Distinguished by Richardson v. Richardson, 1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 324 (1980)
As to the issues raised by Mr. Richardson, we agree with the Trial Court that Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979), is inapplicable.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
On the assumption that the Court’s language concerning discrimination “in the sphere” of the relevant preference statute, ante, at 281, does not imply that society-wide discrimination is always irrelevant, and on the further assumption that that language in no way cuts back on the Court’s decision in Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351 (1974), I join the opinion and judgment of the Court.