Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bellotti Vs. Baird

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jul 02, 1979

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

64 entries 7 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. May Vs. Anderson US Supreme Court · May 18, 1953
  2. WisconsIn Vs. Yoder US Supreme Court · May 15, 1972
  3. Prince Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1944
  4. Stanley Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1972
  5. Meyer Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1923
  6. Goss Vs. Lopez US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1975
  7. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  8. U.S. 622 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  9. U.S. 622 (1979) Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  10. District Court held it unconstitutional. Subsequently, this Court vacated the District Court's judgment, Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  11. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  12. s abortion decision subject in every instance to an absolute third-party veto. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  13. of minors to abortions. They require us to continue the inquiry we began in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  14. U. S. 52 (1976), and Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  15. Baird v. Bellotti
    Search
  16. The District Court ultimately determined that Dr. Zupnick was entitled to assert the rights of these minors. See Baird v. Bellotti
    Search
  17. B Appellants sought review in this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  18. These were answered in an Page 443 U. S. 630 opinion styled Baird v. Attorney
    Search
  19. until its constitutionality could be determined. Baird v. Bellotti
    Search
  20. unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. Baird v. Bellotti
    Search
  21. Moore v. East
    Search
  22. In re Gault, supra. See also Ingraham v. Wright
    Search
  23. Breed v. Jones
    Search
  24. finding in juvenile court that he had violated a criminal statute). Page 443 U. S. 635 Similarly, in Goss v. Lopez
    Search
  25. In re Gault, supra at 387 U. S. 30 , quoting Kent v. United
    Search
  26. Thus, juveniles are not constitutionally entitled to trial by jury in delinquency adjudications. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  27. Page 443 U. S. 636 Ginsberg v. New
    Search
  28. id. at 390 U. S. 638 , quoting Prince v. Massachusetts
    Search
  29. Pierce v. Society
    Search
  30. Ginsberg v. New
    Search
  31. right of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to choose to terminate her pregnancy as established by Roe v. Wade
    Search
  32. U. S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton
    Search
  33. by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. We previously had held in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  34. As MR. JUSTICE STEWART wrote in concurrence in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  35. of weeks from the onset of pregnancy. Moreover, the potentially severe detriment facing a pregnant woman, see Roe v. Wade
    Search
  36. default, with far-reaching consequences. For these reasons, as we held in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  37. Together with No. 78-33D, Hunerwadel v. Baird
    Search
  38. The proceedings before the court and the substance of its opinion are described in detail in Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  39. Similarly, the Court said in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  40. in enacting laws affecting minors on the basis of their lesser capacity for mature, affirmative choice, Tinker v. Des
    Search
  41. the existence of a constitutional parental right against undue, adverse interference by the State. See also Smith v. Organization
    Search
  42. Carey v. Population
    Search
  43. U. S. 390 , 262 U. S. 399 (1923). Cf. Parham v. J.R
    Search
  44. In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  45. U. S. 91 -92, n. 2, quoting Brief for Appellants in Bellotti I, O.T. 1975, No. 75-73, pp. 43-44. In Roe v. Wade
    Search
  46. Povlos v. New
    Search
  47. Winters v. New
    Search
  48. right to decide, in consultation with her physician, to have an abortion is most immune to state intervention. See Roe v. Wade
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Bellotti v. Baird
    Search
  50. and Bellotti v. Baird
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial