Legal Opinion

Matter of Truesdell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 19, 1983No. 8226SC482PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

The question presented for review is whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for involuntary sterilization by applying inappropriate legal and constitutional tests. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the trial court correctly denied the petition for involuntary sterilization because the standards that must be applied to all involuntary sterilizations of the mentally retarded or mentally deficient clearly exclude the respondent, Sophia Renee Truesdell.

I

The undisputed relevant facts as they appear in the record are as follows: Petitioner DSS first…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Conservatorship of Valerie N.California Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Row v. RowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  3. Kayla Doherty v. Merck & Co., Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2017
  4. Matter of RomeroSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
  5. Conservatorship of Valerie N.California Supreme Court · 1985

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API