Hodgson v minnesota. Hodgson v. Minnesota Case Brief 2019-01-06
Hodgson v minnesota Rating:
9,8/10
429
reviews
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
The requirements affect only those women who would not otherwise notify a parent. The 44-hour delay, in turn, is designed to provide parents with adequate time to consult with their daughters. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, , 772 1986. Chinese laborers and miners were specifically barred from coming to the United States under the terms of the law. The Fourteenth Amendment—including the Citizenship Clause—was ratified by state legislatures and became a part of the Constitution in 1868, the Constitution does not specifically deal with loss of citizenship. The Minnesota statute also provides, however, that if the two-parent notice requirement is invalidated, the same notice requirement is effective unless the pregnant minor obtains a court order permitting the abortion to proceed.
Hodgson Russ LLP v. Minnesota Department of Revenue: Hodgson Russ LLP
The State does not rely primarily on the best interests of the minor in defending this statute. § 39-4-202 1982 ; Utah Code Ann. In contrast, the arguments in these cases, as well as the extensive findings of the District Court, are directed primarily at that distinction. Under Minnesota law, for example, there exists a presumption in divorce proceedings that joint custody, if requested by either or both parents, is in the best interests of the child. Society of Sisters, , -535 1925. As Justice Stevens notes, ante, at 449, the 48-hour delay does not apply if a parent or court consents to the abortion. Ten judges heard the case: Donald P.
Chinese immigrants to the United States were met with considerable distrust, resentment, in this climate of popular anti-Chinese sentiment, Congress in 1882 enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which placed limits on Chinese immigration to the United States. In addition, the fact of having a child brings with it adult legal responsibility, for parenthood, like attainment of the age of majority, is one of the traditional criteria for the termination of the legal disabilities of minority. He lost ownership of the hotels during the Great Depression and was convicted of embezzlement and his mother, Elizabeth Maude Stevens, was a high-school English teacher. The Court of Appeals, sitting in banc, reversed. Although they represent substantial intrusion on minors' privacy and take up significant amounts of court time, there is no evidence that they promote more reasoned decisionmaking or screen out adolescents who may be particularly immature or vulnerable. Ullman, , -552 1961 Harlan, J.
He asserts that had he been allowed to develop certain facts for example, that the state intentionally altered evidence, that the state's investigator committed numerous acts of perjury, and that the state withheld discovery his claim of insufficient evidence to support the conviction on direct appeal would have been strengthened. In the majority opinion, authored by Gibson, the court of appeals decided that the state had legitimate interests in protecting the welfare of minors as well as in assisting parents in helping their children make appropriate decisions. Parents can also provide information concerning the minor's medical history of which the minor may not be aware. Moreover, the record reveals that the waiting period may run concurrently with the time necessary to make an appointment for the abortion. Indeed, the fact that one-parent consent is the virtually uniform rule for any other activity which affects the minor's health, safety or welfare emphasizes the aberrant quality of the two-parent notice requirement.
Hodgson Russ LLP v. Minnesota Department of Revenue: Hodgson Russ LLP
Subdivision 6 passes constitutional muster because the interference with the internal operation of the family required by subdivision 2 simply does not exist where the minor can avoid notifying one or both parents by use of the bypass procedure. Alsop decided that Hodgson and the others challenging the law should be given the opportunity to prove that the judicial bypass allowance of the statute was being applied unconstitutionally and granted them a trial to do so. The testimony therefore is hardly sufficient to justify ignoring the District Court's factual finding with regard to the effects of the delay requirement. Any such interest in supporting the authority of a parent, who is presumed to act in the minor's best interest, to assure that the abortion decision is knowing, intelligent, and deliberate, would be fully served by a one-parent notification requirement as to functioning families, where notice to either parent would normally constitute notice to both. Greenleaf, Law of Evidence 286 287 12th ed. The court also rejected the argument that the 48-hour waiting period imposed a significant burden on the minor's abortion right. Hill, , 1888 , the family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children and the intimacies of the marital relationship which is protected by the Constitution against undue state interference.
For these women, the notification requirement by itself does not impose a significant burden. We granted certiorari, 492 U. Nor can any state interest in protecting a parent's interest in shaping a child's values and lifestyle overcome the liberty interests of a minor acting with the consent of a single parent or court. Thus, few minors choose to declare they are victims of sexual or physical abuse despite the prevalence of such abuse in Minnesota, as elsewhere. The impact of any notification requirement is especially devastating for minors who live in fear of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse.
Surely, then, a State could not require that all minor women seeking an abortion obtain judicial approval. Danforth found that the veto is the constitutional problem with the parental involvement law, and the Minnesota law does not permit a parent to exercise that veto. A substantial proportion of pregnant minors voluntarily consult with a parent regardless of the existence of a notification requirement. All but 15 were granted. Just as there must be a constitutional judicial alternative to a notice requirement, so there must be a constitutional notice or consent alternative to the court bypass.
The Court has never considered the actual burdens a particular bypass provision imposes on a woman's right to choose an abortion. Graduating Phi Beta Kappa in 1938, he won a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford in England, after deferring it for a year to play pro football, he attended Hertford College, Oxford. This finding was based on no more than the testimony before a legislative committee of some supporters of the act who hoped it 'would save lives. Moreover, in those families with a history of child abuse, a pregnant minor forced to notify a parent is more likely to be greeted by physical assault or psychological harassment than open and caring conversation about her predicament. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, later, in Planned Parenthood v. From that decision I vehemently dissent.
