Citation network
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. Vs. Casey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 1992
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. 833 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania Et Al. V. CaseySearch
-
to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Together with No. 91-902, Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. PlannedSearch
-
s decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e. g., Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 1 , procreation, Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 , family relationships, Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U. S. 158 , child rearing and education, Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 , and contraception, Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. BairdSearch
-
the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims. See, e. g., Cruzan v. DirectorSearch
-
sui generis, there clearly has been no erosion of its central determination. It was expressly reaffirmed in Akron v. AkronSearch
-
Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U. S. 416 (Akron I), and Thornburgh v. AmericanSearch
-
and, in Webster v. ReproductiveSearch
-
h) A comparison between Roe and two decisional lines of comparable significance-the line identified with Lochner v. NewSearch
-
York, 198 U. S. 45 , and the line that began with Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
U. S. 537 -confirms the result reached here. Those lines were overruled-by, respectively, West Coast Hotel Co. v. ParrishSearch
-
U. S. 379 , and Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Pp. 864-869. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER concluded in Part IV that an examination of Roe v. WadeSearch
-
of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. DanforthSearch
-
Section 3206's one-parent consent requirement and judicial bypass procedure are constitutional. See, e. g., Ohio v. AkronSearch
-
Although Roe v. WadeSearch
-
that they have expanded upon Roe in imposing increasingly greater restrictions on the States, see Thornburgh v. AmericanSearch
-
become increasingly more divided, none of the last three such decisions having commanded a majority opinion, see Ohio v. AkronSearch
-
Webster v. ReproductiveSearch
-
The Roe Court reached too far when it analogized the right to abort a fetus to the rights involved in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
and Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
previous decisions involving such requirements. See, e. g., Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. AshcroftSearch
-
and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. See, e. g., Ohio v. AkronSearch
-
after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. WadeSearch
-
the parties challenging the statute took the position that none of the enactments can be upheld without overruling Roe v. WadeSearch
-
the essential holding of Roe v. WadeSearch
-
it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
executive usurpation and tyranny,' have in this country 'become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation.''' Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
U. S. 497 , 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e. g., Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. See Michael H. v. GeraldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial