Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Diamond Vs. Charles

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 30, 1986

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

78 entries 8 linked 70 unlinked
Show
  1. Baker Vs. Carr US Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1962
  2. Sierra Club Vs. Morton US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1972
  3. United States Vs. Scrap US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1973
  4. Sure-tan, Inc. Vs. Nlrb US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1984
  5. Warth Vs. Seldin US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  6. Doe Vs. Bolton US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  7. Leeke Vs. Timmerman US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1981
  8. Bryant Vs. Yellen US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1980
  9. U.S. 54 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Diamond v. Charles
    Search
  10. U.S. 54 (1986) Diamond v. Charles
    Search
  11. Charles v. Carey
    Search
  12. and 11(d). Charles v. Carey
    Search
  13. of the other party. Gladstone, Realtors v. Village
    Search
  14. Warth v. Seldin
    Search
  15. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans
    Search
  16. between appellees and the State of Illinois. Cf. Princeton University v. Schmid
    Search
  17. who were charged with enforcing the Abortion Law because appellee faced possible criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Doe v. Bolton
    Search
  18. Linda R. S. v. Richard
    Search
  19. Leeke v. Timmerman
    Search
  20. U. S. 883 (1984). See also Younger v. Harris
    Search
  21. U. S. 31 , 369 U. S. 33 (1962). Cf. Allen v. Wright
    Search
  22. is one of the quintessential functions of a State. Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto
    Search
  23. identified in Sierra Club v. Morton
    Search
  24. fact. A physician has standing to challenge an abortion law that poses for him a threat of criminal prosecution. Doe v. Bolton
    Search
  25. Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth
    Search
  26. of other individuals Page 476 U. S. 66 who are unable to assert those rights themselves. See Singleton v. Wulff
    Search
  27. Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  28. Law, as written, be obeyed. Article III requires more than a desire to vindicate value interests. See United States v. SCRAP
    Search
  29. to adduce factual support renders him incapable of maintaining this appeal in his capacity as a parent. See Bender v. Williamsport
    Search
  30. State may invoke the power of the courts when those regulatory measures are subject to challenge. Page 476 U. S. 68 V Finally
    Search
  31. Although intervenors are considered parties entitled, among other things, to seek review by this Court, Mine Workers v. Eagle-Picher
    Search
  32. the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art. III. See id. at 325 U. S. 339 . See also Bryant v. Yellen
    Search
  33. See Donaldson v. United
    Search
  34. Gladstone, Realtors v. Village
    Search
  35. injury 'fairly can be traced to the challenged action' and 'is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,' Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  36. over the Governor's veto. Substantial portions of it already have been held to be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Wynn v. Scott
    Search
  37. F.Supp. 1302 (ND Ill.1978), aff'd sub nom Wynn v. Carey
    Search
  38. A suit against a state officer in his official capacity is, of course, a suit against the State. See Kentucky v. Graham
    Search
  39. U. S. 165 -166 (1985). The District Court certified a defendant class of State's Attorneys. Charles v. Carey
    Search
  40. as it appeared prior to the 1984 amendment. See Charles v. Daley
    Search
  41. n 8, supra, but the Court of Appeals assessed its constitutionality on the version quoted above. See Charles v. Daley
    Search
  42. Law had been preliminarily enjoined under a separate opinion by the District Court following remand. See Charles v. Carey
    Search
  43. version of the Abortion Law, the amended sections were subject to a temporary restraining order. See Keith v. Daley
    Search
  44. the constitutionality of the 1984 amendments and rejected challenges of mootness based on those amendments. Charles v. Daley
    Search
  45. the invasion of which may confer standing. In such a case, the requirements of Art. III may be met. See Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  46. requires an interest in excess of that required for standing), cert. pending sub nom. Save the Dunes Council, Inc. v. United
    Search
  47. States, No. 85-426, with Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Kelley
    Search
  48. equating interest necessary to intervene with interest necessary to confer standing), and United States v. American
    Search
  49. an interest in the outcome of the suit different from that of the public as a whole), with Sagebush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt
    Search
  50. resolving intervention questions without reference to standing doctrine), and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial