Citation network
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. Vs. Lafleur
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 21, 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
-
U.S. 632 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleurSearch
-
U.S. 632 (1974) Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause Page 414 U. S. 640 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 390 . See also Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 535 . As we noted in Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
Page 414 U. S. 642 objective of continuity. But, as the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted in Green v. WaterfordSearch
-
of potentially incapacitated pregnant teachers. But the question is whether the rules sweep too broadly. See Shelton v. TuckerSearch
-
to an individual woman's physical status might be wholly to the contrary. As the Court noted last Term in Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
Similarly, in Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
the Due Process Clause required a more individualized determination. See also United States Dept. of Agriculture v. MurrySearch
-
and efficient procedures to achieve their legitimate objectives in this area. But, as the Court stated in Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
Together with No. 72-1129, Cohen v. ChesterfieldSearch
-
federal appellate opinions dealing with the constitutionality of mandatory maternity leave regulations. Compare Green v. WaterfordSearch
-
Board of Education, 473 F.2d 629 (CA2), and Buckley v. CoyleSearch
-
F.2d 92 (CA10) (both invalidating mandatory leave rules for pregnant public school teachers) with Schattman v. TexasSearch
-
of a state agency). For opinions of the district courts dealing with mandatory maternity leaves, see, e.g., Heath v. WestervilleSearch
-
Pocklington v. DuvalSearch
-
Bravo v. BoardSearch
-
Williams v. SanSearch
-
Seaman v. SpringSearch
-
Monell v. DepartmentSearch
-
of Social Services, 357 F.Supp. 1051 (SDNY). Cf. Struck v. SecretarySearch
-
Gutierrez v. LairdSearch
-
Robinson v. RandSearch
-
thus note the comments only to illustrate the possible role of outmoded taboos in the adoption of the rules. Cf. Green v. WaterfordSearch
-
a family may receive that do not take into account the size of the family illustrate this point. See Dandridge v. WilliamsSearch
-
line of analysis of Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 645 (1972) (POWELL, J., not participating), and Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
and in the adoption of rules and regulations of general application. E.g., San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
I do not reach the question whether sex-based classifications invoke strict judicial scrutiny, e.g., Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
of pregnancy violate due process of law. As THE CHIEF JUSTICE pointed out in his dissent last year in Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
It was pointed out by my Brother STEWART only last year in his concurring opinion in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights. . . . Cf. . . . Truax v. RaichSearch
-
In Truax v. RaichSearch
-
determinations of physical impairment and senility. Page 414 U. S. 660 It has been said before, Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleurSearch
-
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial