Citation network
Zablocki Vs. Redhail
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 18, 1978
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. 374 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Zablocki v. RedhailSearch
-
U.S. 374 (1978) Zablocki v. RedhailSearch
-
Amendment. Pp. 434 U. S. 383 -391. (a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e.g., Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSearch
-
The court ruled, first, that it was not required to abstain from decision under the principles set forth in Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975), and Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Memorial Hospital v. MaricopaSearch
-
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 411 U. S. 17 (1973). The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
Id. at 388 U. S. 12 , quoting Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. Long ago, in Maynard v. HillSearch
-
id. at 125 U. S. 211 . In Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id. at 262 U. S. 399 , and in Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
the decision to marry as among the personal decisions protected by the right of privacy. See generally Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
U. S. 598 -600, and nn. 23-26 (1977). For Page 434 U. S. 385 example, last Term, in Carey v. PopulationSearch
-
individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage, Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
procreation, Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
contraception, Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
family relationships, Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
and child rearing and education, Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Id. at 431 U. S. 684 -685, quoting Roe v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 113 , 410 U. S. 152 -153 (1973). See also Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
Smith v. OrganizationSearch
-
Moore v. EastSearch
-
The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. WadeSearch
-
life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. GordonSearch
-
Weber v. AetnaSearch
-
interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. See Califano v. JobstSearch
-
by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. See, e.g., Carey v. PopulationSearch
-
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
f) (1973). See State v. MuellerSearch
-
F.Supp. 1061, 1064-1065. The possibility that abstention might be required under our decision in Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
since there was no pending state court proceeding in which appellee could have challenged the statute. See Wooley v. MaynardSearch
-
not present their federal constitutional claims in state court before coming to a federal forum. See, e.g., Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
U. S. 241 , 389 U. S. 245 -252 (1967). See also Huffman v. PursueSearch
-
Brief for Appellant 16, citing Burford v. SunSearch
-
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
be content to assert their due process rights for themselves, through collateral attack or otherwise. See Hansberry v. LeeSearch
-
resources to make the showing required by the statute. Id. at 1070, citing San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. RodriguezSearch
-
See State v. MuellerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial