Legal Opinion
Doe v. Heintz
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 9, 1987No. 13012PublishedCited by 83 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
The defendants have appealed from a supplemental judgment of the trial court awarding attorneys’ fees to the class of indigent women represented by the named plaintiff.1 This class had prevailed in a *19suit challenging the validity of a regulation issued by the defendant commissioner of income maintenance2 concerning state funding for abortions requested by women eligible for state medical assistance. The court had previously, on April 9, 1986, rendered judgment for the plaintiffs on the merits of the action, declaring the regulation invalid and enjoining its enforcement. Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn.…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Bradley v. School Bd. of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Harris v. McRaeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Sprague v. Ticonic National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by83 opinions
- Miller v. EganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Barde v. Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
- Shay v. RossiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.