Legal Opinion
Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Lawall
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 9, 1999No. 98-15862PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether the Arizona parental consent statute, which contains an indeterminate judicial bypass provision, and an open-ended medical emergency provision is constitutional. We hold that it is not. Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona and its corporate chapter, Arizona Women’s Clinic, Inc., Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona, Inc., and Frederic N. Stimmell, MD, individually and on behalf of his minor patients (collectively “Planned Parenthood”) challenges the facial validity of the statute. The district court permanently enjoined the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Washington v. GlucksbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Gomez v. VernonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v. WasdenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Human Rights CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Hotel & Motel Ass'n v. City of OaklandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Paul Isaacson v. Tom HorneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.