Webb4 nov. 1980 · Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – March 23, 1981 in Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County. del. Warren E. Burger: We will hear … WebbEmploy for and manage the VA benefits and services you’ve earned for one Veteran, Servicemember, conversely family member—like health care, disability, academics, and more.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case over the issue of gender bias in statutory rape laws. The petitioner argued that the statutory rape law discriminated based on gender and was unconstitutional. The court ruled that this differentiation passes intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause because it serves an important state goal, stating that sexual intercourse entails a higher risk for women th… WebbMichael M. claimed the law discriminated (giving privileges to one group but not to another similar group) on the basis of gender (the sex of the person) since males alone could be … pro hits

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County - Wikidata

WebbMichael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1980). The question presented in this case is whether California's "statutory rape" law, § 261.5 of the … WebbBackground Petitioner Michael M. is charged by information with violating California Penal Code§ 261.5, which reads: Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years.]_/ WebbMichael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County In a series of cases since Frontiero v. Richardson, I the Supreme Court has developed a "middle tier' 2 standard of review for use in gender-discrimination cases under the equal protection clause. This "middle tier" analysis lies somewhere between the "rational basis" test3 and the pro hitting baseball knoxville tn