No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Select Recent Court Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2021
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0098858800002367/resource/name/firstPage-S0098858800002367a.jpg)
- Type
- Other
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2003
References
1 311 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2002).
2 Id. at 267.
3 18 U.S.C. § 669 (2002).
4 Id. at § 669(a).
5 18 U.S.C. § 24(b) (2002).
6 Whited, 311 F.3d at 261.
7 Id. at 262.
8 Id. at 263-64.
9 18 U.S.C. § 24(b).
10 Whited, 311 F.3d at 264.
11 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).
12 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
13 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
14 Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-59.
15 Morrison, 529 U.S. at 617.
16 Whited, 311 F.3d at 268.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 269.
19 Id. at 272.
1 No. 20000827, 2002 WL 31895671, at *1 (Utah Dec. 31, 2002).
2 UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-11-23 to -25 (2002).
3 Wood, 2002 WL 31895671, at *12.
4 UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-11-24 (2002).
5 UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-11-23.
6 Wood, 2002 WL 31895671, at *6.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at *7.
10 Id. at *10.
11 Id.
12 Id. at *21 (Durham, C.J., dissenting).
13 Id. (Durham, C.J., dissenting).
14 Id. (Durham, C.J., dissenting).
15 Id. at *22 (Durham, C.J., dissenting).
16 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (plurality opinion).
17 See IDAHO CODE § 5-334 (Michie 1998); IND. CODE ANN. § 34-12-1-1 (West 1998); MINN. STAT. ANN. § 145.424 (West 1998); MO. ANN. STAT. § 188.130 (West 1996); N.D. CENT. CODE § 32-03-43 (1996); 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 8305 (West 1998); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 21-55-1 to -2 (Michie 1987).
18 Kowitz, Julie F., Not Your Garden Variety Tort Reform: Statutes Barring Claims for Wrongful Life and Wrongful Birth are Unconstitutional Under the Purpose Prong of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 61 BROOK. L. REV. 235, 257 n.105 (1995)Google Scholar.
19 Casey, 505 U.S. at 877 (emphasis added).
20 Kowitz, supra note 26, at 252.
21 This is likely attributable to the Casey decision because its analysis was fact-intensive and result-oriented. Indeed, the Court in Casey simply assumed that the legislature's purpose in passing the challenged statute was to inform a woman's choice. Id.
22 See Wood, 2002 WL 31895671, at *8 (noting that the plaintiffs failed to present any statistical proof of the likelihood of doctors withholding information from women considering aborting a nonviable fetus).
23 Kowitz, supra note 26, at 272-73.