Legal Opinion
Spiering v. Heineman
District Court, D. Nebraska
Decided September 12, 2006No. 4:04CV3385PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KOPF, District Judge.
Loving parents want to delay the state-mandated testing of their newly born infants for metabolic diseases because of their sincere religious beliefs and because of their equally sincere and related concern for the health of their children. Just as committed to the well-being of newborns, the State of Nebraska refuses to accommodate the family. Nebraska fervently believes that such an accommodation would harm children.
Realizing that there is very little law on the subject, I decide that Nebraska’s newborn testing regime, as now constituted, 1 survives…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Pierce v. Society of SistersSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2018
- LaPorte v. GordonDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2020