Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mazurek Vs. Armstrong

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1997

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

46 entries 5 linked 41 unlinked
Show
  1. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  2. Connecticut Vs. Menillo US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1975
  3. Estelle Vs. Gamble US Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1976
  4. Boggs Vs. Boggs US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1997
  5. U.S. 968 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana V. Armstrong
    Search
  6. of prevailing on their claim that the law imposed an undue burden under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
    Search
  7. Court's repeated statements that the performance of abortions may be restricted to physicians. See, e. g., Roe v. Wade
    Search
  8. as interpreted in Spears V. State
    Search
  9. within the meaning of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
    Search
  10. and not the actual performance of abortions, yet we nonetheless held-overruling our prior holding in Akron v. Akron
    Search
  11. do not assume unconstitutional legislative intent even when statutes produce harmful results, see, e. g., Washington v. Davis
    Search
  12. may be restricted to physicians. We first expressed this view (although it was not necessary to our holding) in Roe v. Wade
    Search
  13. We reiterated this view in Connecticut v. Menillo
    Search
  14. ordinarily reluctant to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction in that circumstance. See, e. g., HamiltonBrown Shoe Co. v. Wolf
    Search
  15. clear that there is no absolute bar to review of nonfinal judgments of the lower federal courts, see, e. g., Estelle v. Gamble
    Search
  16. United States v. General
    Search
  17. to a state approved plan,l it did not disqualify Cahill from continuing her work with Dr. Armstrong. ISee Doe v. Esch
    Search
  18. U. S. 833 , 901 (1992), the Court of Appeals looked to our recent decisions in Miller v. Johnson
    Search
  19. U. S. 900 (1995), and Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  20. there is substantial evidence indicating that the sole purpose of the stat- 4 In Doe v. Esch
    Search
  21. supra, the court enjoined enforcement of the hospitalization requirement, and in Doe v. Deschamps
    Search
  22. provide some enlightenment as to whether the Court of Appeals misread this Court's opinions in Miller and Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  23. States Reports. 983 MARCH 3,1997 Certiorari Granted-Vacated and Remanded No. 95-1028. UNITED STATES V. FADEM
    Search
  24. Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Brockamp
    Search
  25. him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court. No. M-61. JOSEPH ET AL. V. QUAGLINO
    Search
  26. CO. ET AL. Motion to direct the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied. No. M-62. DUNBAR V. IOWA
    Search
  27. the Clerk to file petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court's Rule 14.5 denied. No. 96-79. BOGGS v. BOGGS
    Search
  28. to file a supplemental brief as amicus curiae after argument granted. No. 96-272. METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. V. RAMBO
    Search
  29. Syllabus Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana V. Armstrong
    Search
  30. Spears v. State
    Search
  31. of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
    Search
  32. Akron v. Akron
    Search
  33. Washington v. Davis
    Search
  34. HamiltonBrown Shoe Co. v. Wolf
    Search
  35. Dr. Armstrong. ISee Doe v. Esch
    Search
  36. Miller v. Johnson
    Search
  37. and Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  38. In Doe v. Esch
    Search
  39. Doe v. Deschamps
    Search
  40. Miller and Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  41. United States V. Fadem
    Search
  42. of United States v. Brockamp
    Search
  43. Court. No. M-61. Joseph Et Al. V. Quaglino
    Search
  44. No. M-62. Dunbar V. Iowa
    Search
  45. Metropolitan Stevedore Co. V. Rambo
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial