Citation network
Planned Parenthood Assn. Vs. Ashcroft
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1983
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. 476 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Planned Parenthood Assn. v. AshcroftSearch
-
U.S. 476 (1983) Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc. v. AshcroftSearch
-
Akron v. AkronSearch
-
provides a judicial alternative that is consistent with established legal standards. See Akron v. AkronSearch
-
an opinion with respect to Parts III, IV, and V, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins. These cases, like City of Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., ante p. 462 U. S. 416 , and Simopoulos v. VirginiaSearch
-
is unconstitutional. III We turn now to the State's second physician requirement. In Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id. at 410 U. S. 164 -165. See Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
reports, provide a statistical basis for studying those complications. Cf. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
of attorney's fees for all hours expended by plaintiffs' attorneys and remand for proceedings consistent with Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
Together with No. 81-1623, Ashcroft, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. PlannedSearch
-
This clause reasonably could be construed to apply to such a situation. Cf. H. L. v. MathesonSearch
-
particularly inadequately regulated clinics, conform to ethical or generally accepted medical standards. See Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
have never been adopted by a majority of this Court, while a majority have expressed quite differing views. See H. L. v. MathesonSearch
-
Cf. H. L. v. MathesonSearch
-
in this context is void for vagueness, but we disagree. Cf. H. L. v. MathesonSearch
-
guide that determination, and the term is one of general usage and understanding in the Missouri common law. See Black v. ColeSearch
-
Wurth v. WurthSearch
-
course of judicial restraint is abstention. This Court has found such an approach appropriate. See Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Court's decision today in Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Akron, ante at 462 U. S. 430 , quoting Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Cf. Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
to appellate review for indigents). In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
Supp.1982). The Court recognized in Roe v WadeSearch
-
H. L. v. MathesonSearch
-
a severe chilling effect on the physician who perceives the patient's need for a post-viability abortion. In Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
ante at 462 U. S. 491 . In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
In Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
we do not review a District Court's factual findings in which the Court of Appeals has concurred. Branti v. FinkelSearch
-
for Petitioners in No. 81-1623, p. 44. The Court rejected this purported justification for a second physician in Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
U. S. 518 , 405 U. S. 520 (1972), quoting United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. For reasons stated in my dissent in Akron v. AkronSearch
-
I also concur in the Court's decision to vacate and remand on the issue of attorney's fees in light of Hensley v. EckerhartSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Planned Parenthood Assn. v. AshcroftSearch
-
Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc. v. AshcroftSearch
-
See Akron v. AkronSearch
-
City of Akron v. AkronSearch
-
and Simopoulos v. VirginiaSearch
-
In Roe v. WadeSearch
-
See Colautti v. FranklinSearch
-
Cf. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial