Supreme Court of Rhode Island
935 A.2d 956 (2007)
On May 26, 2004, Margaret Chambers (plaintiff) and Cassandra Ormiston (defendant), both residents of Rhode Island, traveled to Massachusetts where they were legally married under the laws of that state. Chambers and Ormiston then returned to Rhode Island. On October 23, 2006, Chambers filed for divorce in Rhode Island Family Court. On October 27, Ormiston filed an answer and counterclaim. The Family Court certified a question to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island as to whether it had jurisdiction to recognize a same-sex marriage for the purpose of hearing a divorce petition. Rhode Island had no legal decision or statute allowing same-sex couples to marry in that state.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)
Dissent (Suttell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.