Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Vacco Vs. Quill

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 08, 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

72 entries 3 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Romer Vs. Evans US Supreme Court · May 20, 1996
  2. Heller Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1993
  3. Plyler Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1982
  4. U.S. 793 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Vacco, Attorney General of New York, Et Al. V. Quill
    Search
  5. a general rule that States must treat like cases alike but may treat unlike cases accordingly. E. g., Plyler v. Doe
    Search
  6. outlawing assisted suicide neither infringe fundamental rights nor involve suspect classifications, e. g., Washington v. Glucksberg
    Search
  7. ante, at 719-728, and are therefore entitled to a strong presumption of validity, Heller v. Doe
    Search
  8. that apply evenhandedly to all unquestionably comply with equal protection. E. g., New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
    Search
  9. It comports with fundamental legal principles of causation, see, e. g., People v. Kevorkian
    Search
  10. Mich. 436, 470-472, 527 N. W. 2d 714, 728, cert. denied, 514 U. S. 1083, and intent, see, e. g., United States v. Bailey
    Search
  11. has been recognized, at least implicitly, by this Court in Cruzan v. Director
    Search
  12. See generally Washington v. Glucksberg
    Search
  13. Quill v. Koppell
    Search
  14. as physician-assisted suicide, New York's assisted-suicide ban violates the Equal Protection Clause. Quill v. Koppell
    Search
  15. This provision creates no substantive rights. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez
    Search
  16. it embodies a general rule that States must treat like cases alike but may treat unlike cases accordingly. Plyler v. Doe
    Search
  17. things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same''') (quoting Tigner v. Texas
    Search
  18. to all New Yorkers alike. They neither infringe fundamental rights nor involve suspect classifications. Washington v. Glucksberg
    Search
  19. with the Equal Protection Clause. New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
    Search
  20. see Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney
    Search
  21. if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that medication. See, e. g., People v. Kevorkian
    Search
  22. Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz
    Search
  23. actors' intent or purpose to distinguish between two acts that may have the same result. See, e. g., United States v. Bailey
    Search
  24. Morissette v. United
    Search
  25. Dying v. Washington
    Search
  26. New York courts, have carefully distinguished refusing life-sustaining treatment from suicide. See, e. g., Fosmire v. Nicoleau
    Search
  27. In re Quinlan, 70 N. J. 10, 43,52, and n. 9, 355 A. 2d 647,665,670, and n. 9, cert. denied sub nom. Garger v. New
    Search
  28. court recognize a right to refuse treatment, and nowhere equate the exercise of this right with suicide. Schloendorff v. Society
    Search
  29. was simply an informed-consent case. See also Rivers v. Katz
    Search
  30. line between assisting suicide and with- 8 Many courts have recognized this distinction. See, e. g., Kevorkian v. Thompson
    Search
  31. Singletary v. Costello
    Search
  32. Laurie v. Senecal
    Search
  33. Schuetzle v. Vogel
    Search
  34. Thor v. Superior
    Search
  35. DeGrella v. Elston
    Search
  36. People v. Adams
    Search
  37. Guardianship of Jane Doe, 411 Mass. 512, 522-523, 583 N. E. 2d 1263, 1270, cert. denied sub nom. Doe v. Gross
    Search
  38. Donaldson v. Van
    Search
  39. McKay v. Bergstedt
    Search
  40. McConnell v. Beverly
    Search
  41. State v. McAfee
    Search
  42. Rasmussen v. Fleming
    Search
  43. Bouvia v. Superior
    Search
  44. Von Holden v. Chapman
    Search
  45. Bartling v. Superior
    Search
  46. Foody v. Manchester
    Search
  47. Leach v. Akron
    Search
  48. Satz v. Perlmutter
    Search
  49. Brophy v. New
    Search
  50. E. 2d 626, 638 (1986). The British House of Lords has also recognized the distinction. Airedale N. H. S. Trust v. Bland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial