 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Editing Planned Parenthood v. Casey
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=June 29, 1992 | |date=June 29, 1992 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from= | |||
|case_treatment=Yes | |||
|partially_overturned=Roe v. Wade | |partially_overturned=Roe v. Wade | ||
|facts=Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 included several provisions related to abortion, including a requirement to inform the spouse prior to the abortion. | |facts=Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 included several provisions related to abortion, including a requirement to inform the spouse prior to the abortion. | ||
|procedural_history= | |||
|issues=Is the spousal awareness requirement valid? | |issues=Is the spousal awareness requirement valid? | ||
|arguments= | |||
|holding=No. | |holding=No. | ||
The Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions | The Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions | ||
| | |judgment= | ||
|comments=In an unusual move, the opinion was co-authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter. Of this opinion, parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI were joined by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, parts V-E were joined by Stevens, and | |reasons= | ||
|rule= | |||
|comments=In an unusual move, the opinion was co-authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter. Of this opinion, parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI were joined by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, parts V-E were joined by Stevens, and (Parts IV, V-B, and V-D) were joined by no other justices. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 | |link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 | ||
| Line 27: | Line 33: | ||
|opinion_type=plurality | |opinion_type=plurality | ||
|written_by=Sandra Day O'Connor*Anthony M. Kennedy*David H. Souter | |written_by=Sandra Day O'Connor*Anthony M. Kennedy*David H. Souter | ||
|joined_by= | |||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=concur/dissent | |opinion_type=concur/dissent | ||
|written_by=John Paul Stevens | |written_by=John Paul Stevens | ||
|joined_by= | |||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=concur/dissent | |opinion_type=concur/dissent | ||
|written_by=Harry Blackmun | |written_by=Harry Blackmun | ||
|joined_by= | |||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=concur/dissent | |opinion_type=concur/dissent | ||
