Citation network
Rivera Vs. Minnich
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1987
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. 574 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Rivera v. MinnichSearch
-
U.S. 574 (1987) Rivera v. MinnichSearch
-
of validity when challenged under the Due Process Clause. This case is not controlled by the holding in Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
The Chief Justice of that court dissented. Relying on our holding in Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
Lochner v. NewSearch
-
judgment Page 483 U. S. 579 about the way in which law should be enforced and justice administered.' Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 , 397 U. S. 361 -362 (1970). Similarly, in Addington v. TexasSearch
-
or the even more demanding criminal law standard, id. at 441 U. S. 430 -431, and n. 5. And in Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
and loving protection that are at the heart of the parental relationship protected by the Constitution. See Lehr v. RobertsonSearch
-
Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
a more stringent standard of proof to a civil paternity action. See, e.g., In re Wayne County Dept. of Social Services v. WilliamsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Jones v. RobinsonSearch
-
Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be affirmed for the reasons set forth by JUSTICE REHNQUIST in dissent in Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
U. S. 583 in light of that special solicitude, I cannot find that the flexible concept of due process, Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
Ante at 483 U. S. 577 -578, n. 5, quoting Addington v. TexasSearch
-
spans a lifetime. In this respect, a paternity determination is far more akin to the proceeding involved in Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
by others as a father who sought to shirk responsibility for his actions. See, e.g., County of Hennepin v. BrinkmanSearch
-
Tennessee Dept. of Human Services v. VaughnSearch
-
Commonwealth v. JacobsSearch
-
Brief for Appellee 2, a level of certainty achieved quite frequently through the use of such tests. See, e.g., Jones v. RobinsonSearch
-
Cortese v. CorteseSearch
-
in which Pennsylvania demands proof by clear and convincing evidence, such as proof of a change of domicile, McKenna v. McKennaSearch
-
reformation of contract on grounds of mistake, Boyertown National Bank v. HartmanSearch
-
proof of adverse possession, Stevenson v. SteinSearch
-
As we have stressed, however, an illegitimate child cannot be held responsible for his or her status. See Trimble v. GordonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rivera v. MinnichSearch
-
Lochner v. NewSearch
-
Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
the Constitution. See Lehr v. RobertsonSearch
-
Wayne County Dept. of Social Services v. WilliamsSearch
-
County of Hennepin v. BrinkmanSearch
-
McKenna v. McKennaSearch
-
Boyertown National Bank v. HartmanSearch
-
Stevenson v. SteinSearch
-
See Trimble v. GordonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial