Citation network
Whalen Vs. Roe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 22, 1977
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 589 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
U.S. 589 (1977) Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
they cannot be prescribed. Schedules II through v. includeSearch
-
of the new statute. There was a time when that alone would have provided a basis for invalidating the statute. Lochner v. NewSearch
-
Roe v. IngrahamSearch
-
SDNY 1975). Earlier, the District Court had dismissed the complaint for want of a substantial federal question. Roe v. IngrahamSearch
-
holding that a substantial constitutional question was presented, and therefore a three-judge court was required. Roe v. IngrahamSearch
-
FHA v. TheSearch
-
Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 660 , 370 U. S. 664 . Cf. Minnesota ex rel. Whipple v. MartinsonSearch
-
Palko v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 319 , 302 U. S. 325 , quoted in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
that an undefined penumbra may provide them with an independent source of constitutional protection. In Roe v. WadeSearch
-
In his dissent in Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
in Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
U. S. 578 . In Paul v. DavisSearch
-
York State Controlled Substances Act, effective Apr. 1, 1973 (reproduced at App. 88a). Just last Term, in Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
interest in making the abortion decision free of governmental intrusion, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
that the State has broad police powers in regulating the administration of drug by the health professions. Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Barsky v. BoardSearch
-
In Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
appellees also claim that a constitutional privacy right emanates from the Fourth Amendment, citing language in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 9 , at a point where it quotes from Katz v. UnitedSearch
-
the Patient appellees derive a right to individual anonymity from our freedom of association cases such as Bates v. LittleSearch
-
Rock, 361 U. S. 516 , 361 U. S. 522 -523, and NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
Bates v. LittleSearch
-
of medical treatment. Also, in those cases there was an uncontroverted showing of past harm through disclosure, NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
supra at 361 U. S. 462 , an element which is absent here. Cf. Schulman v. NewSearch
-
The doctors rely on two references to a physician's right to administer medical care in the opinion in Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
A. Miller, The Assault on Privacy (1971). See also Utz v. CullinaneSearch
-
protected privacy rights, and would presumably be justified only by compelling state interests. See, e.g., Roe v. WadeSearch
-
would only be consistent with the Constitution if it were necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Roe v. WadeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Whalen v. RoeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial