Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ohio Vs. Akron Center

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

63 entries 6 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. H. L. Vs. Matheson US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1981
  2. Hodgson Vs. Minnesota US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1990
  3. Maher Vs. Roe US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1977
  4. Frisby Vs. Schultz US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1988
  5. National League of Cities Vs. Usery US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1976
  6. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  7. Ohio v. Akron
    Search
  8. Center - 497 U.S. 502 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Ohio v. Akron
    Search
  9. Center, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) Ohio v. Akron
    Search
  10. notice or consent statutes in the abortion context. Page 497 U. S. 503 Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  11. Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. Ashcroft
    Search
  12. Akron v. Akron
    Search
  13. S. 518 -519. Justice KENNEDY, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice WHITE, and Justice SCALIA, concluded in Part V that
    Search
  14. parental notification for cases in which the minor is mature or notice would not be in her best interests. See Akron v. Akron
    Search
  15. of parental notice or parental consent statutes in the abortion context. See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  16. Page 497 U. S. 511 consent. See 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 74 . As we hold today in Hodgson v. Minnesota
    Search
  17. in Bellotti protected anonymity by permitting use of a pseudonym, see Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti
    Search
  18. than are we, Frisby v. Schultz
    Search
  19. Webster v. Reproductive
    Search
  20. a State seeks to deprive an individual of liberty interests, it must take upon itself the risk of error. See Santosky v. Kramer
    Search
  21. Cross v. Ledford
    Search
  22. expedition and anonymity, and the clear and convincing evidence standard make the bypass procedure unfair. See Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  23. s professional status. On this facial challenge, we find the physician notification requirement unobjectionable. v. The
    Search
  24. right to abortion. I continue to believe, however, as I said in my separate concurrence last Term in Webster v. Reproductive
    Search
  25. the statute will reasonably further its legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of its minor citizens. See H.L. v. Matheson
    Search
  26. adequate mechanism for cases in which the minor is mature or notice would not be in her best interests. In Akron v. Akron
    Search
  27. to invoke the State's juvenile court procedures. We held the same day in Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo. v. Ashcroft
    Search
  28. when the minor's petition was filed. Writing for six Justices, including the author of the Court's opinion in H.L. v. Matheson
    Search
  29. in the case Page 497 U. S. 523 of a mature minor seeking an abortion would be unconstitutional. See H.L. v. Matheson
    Search
  30. ante at 497 U. S. 517 -518, to overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. Cf. Parham v. J.R
    Search
  31. was motivated more by a legislative interest in placing obstacles in the woman's path to an abortion, see Maher v. Roe
    Search
  32. concerning the wisdom or unwisdom of the measure. I have made this observation before, see National League of Cities v. Usery
    Search
  33. Planned Parenthood of Page 497 U. S. 525 Central Mo. v. Danforth
    Search
  34. Thornburgh v. American
    Search
  35. deterrent effect on a pregnant minor seeking to exercise her constitutional right as does a consent statute. See Akron v. Akron
    Search
  36. Retreat from Roe v. Wade
    Search
  37. as it appropriately was described by the Court of Appeals, Akron Center for Reproductive Health v. Slaby
    Search
  38. has permitted no less. See ante at 497 U. S. 512 , citing Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti
    Search
  39. Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc. v. Ashcroft
    Search
  40. American College of Obstetricians v. Thornburgh
    Search
  41. from the records of all other cases that are available to the public. Akron Center for Reproductive Health v. Rosen
    Search
  42. F.Supp. 1123, 1143-1144 (ND Ohio 1986). Cf. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti
    Search
  43. Planned Parenthood Assn. of the Atlanta Area, Inc. v. Harris
    Search
  44. care is taken, court documents of an intimate nature will find their way to the press and public. See The Florida Star v. B.J
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Ohio v. Akron
    Search
  46. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  47. Part v. that
    Search
  48. See Akron v. Akron
    Search
  49. See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth
    Search
  50. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales