Citation network
Hodgson Vs. Minnesota
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1990
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 417 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Hodgson v. MinnesotaSearch
-
U.S. 417 (1990) Hodgson v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the minor's welfare. Pp. 497 U. S. 450 -455. Justice STEVENS, joined by Justice O'CONNOR, concluded in Parts V andSearch
-
imposed requirement that the minor notify and consult with a parent before terminating her pregnancy. See, e.g., Ohio v. AkronSearch
-
avoid notifying one or both parents by using the bypass procedure. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
attempted to fit its legislation into the framework supplied by this Court's previous cases, particularly Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
The conclusion that subdivision 6 must be sustained is compelled not only by Bellotti but also by H.L. v. MathesonSearch
-
with respect to Part III, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, an opinion with Page 497 U. S. 421 respect to Parts V andSearch
-
Parts v. andSearch
-
of her liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. See Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
Carey v. PopulationSearch
-
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
interpreted in those cases, protects the woman's right to make such decisions independently and privately, see Whalen v. RoeSearch
-
Moreover, the potentially severe detriment facing a pregnant woman, see Roe v. WadeSearch
-
U. S. 642 (1979) ( Bellotti II ). As we stated in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
is obviously permissible even though a State may not categorically exclude nonresidents from its borders, Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 618 , 394 U. S. 631 (1969), or deny prisoners the right to marry, Turner v. SafleySearch
-
be predicated on legitimate state concerns other than disagreement with the choice the individual has made. Cf. Turner v. SafleySearch
-
its own money, or use its own facilities, to subsidize nontherapeutic abortions for minors or adults. See, e.g., Maher v. RoeSearch
-
Webster v. ReproductiveSearch
-
Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
cannot be sustained if the obstacles it imposes are not reasonably related to legitimate state interests. Cf. Turner v. SafleySearch
-
Although the Massachusetts statute reviewed in Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
II required the consent of both parents, and the Utah statute reviewed in H.L. Page 497 U. S. 437 v. MathesonSearch
-
Id. at 777-778. V ThreeSearch
-
obtain his or her parent's consent before undergoing an operation, marrying, or entering military service, see Parham v. J.RSearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSearch
-
s reasonable judgment that the decision should be made after notification to and consultation with a parent. See Ohio v. AkronSearch
-
Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Caban v. MohammedSearch
-
the natural parent a stake in the relationship with the child rising to the level of a liberty interest. See Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
Michael H. v. GeraldSearch
-
While the State has a legitimate interest in the creation and dissolution of the marriage contract, see Sosna v. IowaSearch
-
of the marital relationship which is protected by the Constitution against undue state interference. See Wisconsin v. YoderSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial