Citation network
Memorial Hosp. Vs. Maricopa County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 26, 1974
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Memorial Hosp. v. MaricopaSearch
-
County - 415 U.S. 250 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Memorial Hosp. v. MaricopaSearch
-
County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) Memorial Hospital v. MaricopaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
their constitutional right of interstate migration, must be justified by a compelling state interest. Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
this durational residence requirement is repugnant to the Equal Protection Clause as applied by this Court in Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
the residence requirement unconstitutional, and had enjoined its future application in Pinal County. Valencano v. BatemanSearch
-
considered similar durational Page 415 U. S. 254 residence requirements for welfare assistance in Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 524 , 414 U. S. 531 (1974). V AlthoughSearch
-
must be justified by a compelling state interest. Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. at 394 U. S. 638 n. 21. In Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
or not a welfare program is federally funded is irrelevant to the applicability of the Shapiro analysis. Pease v. HansenSearch
-
Graham v. RichardsonSearch
-
its asserted objectives, has chosen means that do not unnecessarily burden constitutionally protected interests. NAACP v. ButtonSearch
-
which, in effect, severely penalizes exercise of the right to freely migrate and settle in another State. See Rivera v. DunnSearch
-
rationale both in Shapiro and in Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
but that purpose would not sustain such a scheme. See also Cole v. HousingSearch
-
a protracted waiting period which may have dire economic and health consequences for certain citizens. See Shelton v. TuckerSearch
-
since the application of the challenged statute in that County was enjoined by a federal court in Valenciano v. BatemanSearch
-
serve that purpose are available which would have a less drastic impact on constitutionally protected interests. NAACP v. ButtonSearch
-
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. MorenoSearch
-
court had also declared the durational residence requirement unconstitutional in Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. RobinsonSearch
-
durational residence requirement for care at state mental health facilities was declared unconstitutional in Vaughan v. BowerSearch
-
one-year durational residence requirement for medical care at public expense was found unconstitutional in Arnold v. HalifaxSearch
-
Hospital Dist., 314 F.Supp. 277 (MD Fla.1970), and Crapps v. DuvalSearch
-
E.g., Weber v. AetnaSearch
-
Wyman v. LopezSearch
-
Griffin v. BreckenridgeSearch
-
Demiragh v. DeVosSearch
-
See King v. NewSearch
-
Cole v. HousingSearch
-
Wellford v. BattagliaSearch
-
Truax v. RaichSearch
-
For a discussion of the problems posed by this ambiguity, see Judge Coffin's perceptive opinion in Cole v. HousingSearch
-
In Vaughan v. BowerSearch
-
consider being committed to a mental hospital when they decide to take up residence in a new State. See also Afleldt v. WhitcombSearch
-
See Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
in a way that would clearly include medical care in the latter category. The District Court in Starns v. MalkersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial