 | ||||
© 2015 The Gormly Law Firm, PLLC.
Under the rules of certain jurisdictions, this communication may constitute 'Attorney Advertising.'
:: Firm News ::
Latest Press Releases / Alerts
06.15.2012
Robertson v. Scott: Gormly Law Firm Case Noted as "One of the Cases to Watch" at Texas Bar LGBT Law Section CLE Line-Up
Ken Upton of Lambda Legal, Dallas, will be providing a Caselaw Update at this year's annual meeting of the LGBT Law Section of the State Bar of Texas. During the Friday, June 15th session, one of the featured cases Upton will be presenting is the divorce matter of Robertson v. Scott.
James Scott, a transgender man, is represented by Eric Gormly of The Gormly Law Firm. On November 21, 2011, Gormly won a denial of Motion for Summary Judgment before Judge Lori Hockett of the 255th Family District Court in Dallas.
Rebecca Robertson's attorney, Tom Nichol, argued that since Scott was originally born a woman, the marriage between his client and Scott was actually a same-sex marriage and should be considered invalid per Texas state law. Gormly argued that, based on all evidence of Scott's full transition, he should be considered a man for the purposes of entering a marriage, and that a fully transitioned transgendered woman should be considered a woman for the same purposes under Texas law.
Robertson and Scott had been married for 13 years when she originally filed to declare the marriage void on September 9, 2010.
Robertson v. Scott is now a bona fide divorce action.
To read more on the Robertson v. Scott case, click here.
To read more about the LGBT Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, click here.
5.31.2011
Eric Gormly Accepted to Practice in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Eric Gormly with Marston Alexander -- friend, colleague, and sponsor for admission into the Northern District of Federal Court.
...............................................................................................
