Legal Opinion
Huffman v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided April 3, 2009No. S-12846PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
I. INTRODUCHON
All public school children must be tested for tuberculosis State regulations require the use of a purified protein derivative (PPD) skin test for this purpose. The test may be waived if, in the opinion of a physician, it would be injurious for a particular child.
The appellants, Patrick Huffman and Amy Reedy-Huffman, believe that the PPD test would be injurious for their children. They submitted an affidavit so stating signed by Patrick, who is a naturopathic doctor. The Kenai Peninsula School District found the waiver affidavit insufficient because state…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- United States v. SeegerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Frank Africa v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Leroy S. Zimmerman (Attorney General) Bureau of Corrections Ronald Marks (Commissioner of b.o.c.)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great NorthwestAlaska Supreme Court · 2019
- John Doe v. Department of Public SafetyAlaska Supreme Court · 2019
- Kiva O. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2018
- In the Matter of the Protective Proceeings of Nora D.Alaska Supreme Court · 2021
- Glasgow v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.