Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
People v. Kevorkian
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 13, 1994No. Docket Nos. 99591, 99674, 99752, 99758, 99759, (Calendar No. 1)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBoyle, J.
I agree with the lead opinion that §7 of 1993 PA 3 does not violate the Title-Object Clause of the Michigan Constitution1 in its entirety. I also agree with the lead opinion’s result and rationale finding that the act is not violative of a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the state or federal constitution. In addition, as stated in the observations of Justice Harlan2 quoted approvingly in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, 505 US 833; 112 S Ct 2791; 120 L Ed 2d 674, 697-698 (1992), and the expansion on those principles that follow, the task of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Poe v. UllmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Korematsu v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- People v. UtterMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- People v. PotterMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.