Citation network
Michael H. Vs. Gerald D.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 15, 1989
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Michael H. v. GeraldSearch
-
D. - 491 U.S. 110 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Michael H. v. GeraldSearch
-
D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) Michael H. v. GeraldSearch
-
and upon an earlier California case, Vincent B. v. JoanSearch
-
however, as it Page 491 U. S. 117 was neither raised nor passed upon below. See Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. CrenshawSearch
-
from establishing his paternity. See 191 Cal.App.3d at 1013, 236 Cal.Rptr. at 821, citing Vincent B. v. JoanSearch
-
Cal.App.3d at 1005, 236 Cal.Rptr. at 816, quoting Vincent B. v. JoanSearch
-
Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
the adequacy of procedures, but -- like our cases involving classifications framed in other terms, see, e.g., Craig v. BorenSearch
-
in the Due Process Clause extends beyond freedom from physical restraint. See, e.g., Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Moore v. EastSearch
-
our cases according constitutional protection to certain parental rights. Michael reads the landmark case of Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 645 (1972), and the subsequent cases of Quilloin v. WalcottSearch
-
U. S. 246 (1978), Caban v. MohammedSearch
-
U. S. 380 (1979), and Lehr v. RobertsonSearch
-
had lived with and supported them and their mother for 18 years. As Justice Powell stated for the plurality in Moore v. EastSearch
-
Page 491 U. S. 128 In Lehr v. RobertsonSearch
-
categorical preference to the latter. In Lehr, we quoted approvingly from Justice Stewart's dissent in Caban v. MohammedSearch
-
filial relationship with Michael, the State is discriminating against her on the basis of her illegitimacy. See Gomez v. PerezSearch
-
post at 491 U. S. 140 . For example, in Bowers v. HardwickSearch
-
Id. at 478 U. S. 194 . In Roe v. WadeSearch
-
law at all. Finally, we may note that this analysis is not inconsistent with the result in cases such as Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 479 (1965), or Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment that may be somewhat inconsistent with our past decisions in this area. See Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
available. Ante at 491 U. S. 127 -128, n. 6. See Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
United States v. StanleySearch
-
in part). I would not foreclose the unanticipated by the prior imposition of a single mode of historical analysis. Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
to, and cohabiting with, another man at the time of the child's conception and birth. I think cases like Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 645 (1972), and Caban v. MohammedSearch
-
plain language, but it is also not consistent with the California courts' reading of the statute. Thus, in Vincent B. v. JoanSearch
-
who claims to be, Z.'s biological father, is entitled to visitation against the wishes of the mother. ( Petitioner F. v. RespondentSearch
-
Cal.App.3d 995, 1013, 236 Cal.Rptr. 810, 821 (1987), and then quoted the above excerpt from the opinion in Vincent B. v. JoanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial