Citation network
Stenberg Vs. Carhart
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 2000
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. 914 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, Et Al. V. CarhartSearch
-
The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Roe v. WadeSearch
-
weight. For one thing, this Court normally follows lower federalcourt interpretations of state law, e. g., McMillian v. MonroeSearch
-
and rarely reviews such an interpretation that is agreed upon by the two lower federal courts. Virginia v. AmericanSearch
-
Court lacks power do so where, as here, the narrowing construction is not reasonable and readily apparent. E. g., Boos v. BarrySearch
-
court construction or the development of an established practice before bringing the federal suit. City of Lakewood v. PlainSearch
-
Supreme Court nor asked the federal courts to certify the interpretive question. Cf. Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to a narrowing construction, see Houston v. HillSearch
-
J. Poynor, Alison P. Landry, and Anthony P. Meredith, Assistant Attorneys General, Claire J. V. RichardsSearch
-
has determined and then redetermined that the Constitution offers basic protection to the woman's right to choose. Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Id., at 879 (quoting Roe v. WadeSearch
-
cf. Hope Clinic v. RyanSearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. DanforthSearch
-
or for women for whom induction of labor would be particularly dangerous. See Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. VoinovichSearch
-
Evans v. KelleySearch
-
violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in 930 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySearch
-
U. S. 833 (1992), and Roe v. WadeSearch
-
see also Harris v. McRaeSearch
-
clear that a State may promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion. Thornburgh v. AmericanSearch
-
that have heard expert evidence on the matter have reached similar factual conclusions. See Rhode Island Medical Soc. v. WhitehouseSearch
-
Women v. ButterworthSearch
-
Causeway Medical Suite v. FosterSearch
-
Richmond 933 Medical Center for Women v. GilmoreSearch
-
Hope Clinic v. RyanSearch
-
but see Planned Parenthood of Wis. v. DoyleSearch
-
weight. For one thing, this Court normally follows lower federal-court interpretations of state law. McMillian v. MonroeSearch
-
Brockett v. SpokaneSearch
-
Virginia v. AmericanSearch
-
Under Nebraska law, the Attorney General's interpretative views do not bind the state courts. State v. CoffmanSearch
-
cf. Crandon v. UnitedSearch
-
found the language potentially applicable to other abortion procedures. See Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. MillerSearch
-
Little Rock Family Planning Services v. JegleySearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Central N. J. v. VernieroSearch
-
Eubanks v. StengelSearch
-
Planned Parenthood of Southern Ariz., Inc. v. WoodsSearch
-
but cf. Richmond Medical Center v. GilmoreSearch
-
an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. KeeneSearch
-
Fox v. StandardSearch
-
cf. Gustafson v. AlloydSearch
-
See AlmendarezTorres v. UnitedSearch
-
City of Lakewood v. PlainSearch
-
cf. Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial