Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Nixon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 27, 2000PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allocatur for this Court to consider two issues. First, we consider whether to adopt a “mature minor doctrine” which would be an affirmative defense to the parental duty to provide care to a minor. Secondly, we consider whether Shannon Nixon had a right to refuse medical care pursuant to her privacy rights under the constitutions of the United States and this Commonwealth. For the reasons that follow, we choose not to adopt a “mature minor doctrine” as a criminal defense and further, we find that Shannon Nixon’s constitutional right to privacy did not…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Prince v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. In Re B.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Cardwell v. BechtolTennessee Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Fabio v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ETC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hospital CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Fc IIISupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  2. Robinson Township v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. In re Brianna B.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  4. Commonwealth v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Hiller v. FauseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

2 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