To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

How to transfigure the Wikipedia

Would you like Wikipedia to always look as professional and up-to-date? We have created a browser extension. It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology.

Try it — you can delete it anytime.

Install in 5 seconds
4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
Great Wikipedia has got greater.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Orr v. Orr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orr v. Orr
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 27, 1978
Decided March 5, 1979
Full case nameWilliam Orr v. Lillian Orr
Citations440 U.S. 268 (more)
99 S. Ct. 1102; 59 L. Ed. 2d 306; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 65
Holding
The Alabama statute granting alimony only to women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrenceStevens
DissentPowell
DissentRehnquist, joined by Burger
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that Alabama statutes that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives was an unconstitutional equal protection violation.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    54 107
    17 440
  • Can I Trust the Bible? Open Forum with Amy Orr-Ewing
  • Lass Wunder Geschehen, Wie kreiere ich, mit Gabrielle Orr

Transcription

Background

The state of Alabama had adopted statutes that imposed alimony obligations on husbands but not on wives for the stated purpose of addressing the economic disparity between men and women by providing support for needy women after divorce.[1]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Margaret Moses Young filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Opinion of the Court

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court determined that the statute was not substantially related to the stated purpose. The Court observed that a gender neutral statute would still have the effect of providing for needy women. The Court further observed that the only difference created by the Alabama statute was to also provide support for well off women that did not need support, and to exclude needy men from support.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b Jonathan D. Varat; William Cohen; Vikram Amar (2009). Constitutional Law Cases and Materials (Concise Thirteenth ed.). New York: Foundation Press. p. 580.
  2. ^ Varat, p. 581

External links

This page was last edited on 24 February 2024, at 13:57
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.
Contact WIKI 2
Introduction
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy