Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 23 of 23
Full-Text Articles in Law
12-27-1972 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Stewart, William H. Rehnquist
12-27-1972 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Stewart, William H. Rehnquist
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Dear Potter:
Please join me in your memorandum.
12-22-1972 Justice Stewart, Memorandum, Potter Stewart
12-22-1972 Justice Stewart, Memorandum, Potter Stewart
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
This case came here as an appeal, on the representation that Texas courts had sustained the constitutionality of 4.02. c. 4. of the Texas Family Code and Articles 602 and 602a of the Texas Penal Code, over a challenge to those statutes under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 408 U.S. 920, to consider whether the alleged discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children in terms of the support obligations of their biological fathers denied equal protection to illegitimate children under the principles of Weber v. Actna Cas. & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164. …
12-21-1972 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger
12-21-1972 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Dear Byron:
There are four firm dissents to DIG in the above and I am reluctant to DIG a writ in that posture.
If you are willing to cast your dissent into a Per Curiam, you might pick up a few "new members'' since on the merits there will be support for that result.
12-18-1972 Justice White, Dissenting, Byron R. White
12-18-1972 Justice White, Dissenting, Byron R. White
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.
12-15-1972 Correspondence From Douglas To White, William O. Douglas
12-15-1972 Correspondence From Douglas To White, William O. Douglas
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Dear Byron:
Please join me in your dissent in 71-575, Gomez v. Perez.
12-15-1972 Correspondence From Brennan To White, William J. Brennan
12-15-1972 Correspondence From Brennan To White, William J. Brennan
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Dear Byron:
Please join me in your dissent in the above.
12-15-1972 Preliminary Memorandum, Ralph I. Miller
12-15-1972 Preliminary Memorandum, Ralph I. Miller
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Summary:
Justice White takes the approach that, once the state undertakes to enforce a support obligation, it cannot violate EP. [He seems to obfuscate the statutory and common law obligations and treat the Texas law as a mass.]
12-14-1972 Correspondence From White To Burger, Byron R. White
12-14-1972 Correspondence From White To Burger, Byron R. White
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Dear Chief :
I shall have a few words to say in dissent.
12-07-1972 Preliminary Memorandum, Ralph I. Miller
12-07-1972 Preliminary Memorandum, Ralph I. Miller
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Linda R.S. v. Richard D. and Texas: The issue here, as I understand it, is the effect of joining Texas as a party defendant.
12-06-1972 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun
12-06-1972 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from the oral argument of Gomez v. Perez.
12-06-1972 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun
12-06-1972 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes during the oral argument of Gomez v. Perez.
12-01-1972 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun
12-01-1972 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from the oral argument of Gomez v. Perez.
06-16-1972 Perliminary Memorandum, John Townsend Rich
06-16-1972 Perliminary Memorandum, John Townsend Rich
Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)
Question presented:
Whether Texas statutes are unconstitutional as violating due process and equal protection insofar as they permit a legitimate child to require support and maintenance from his natural father, while denying an illegitimate child the right to require his natural father to support and maintain him.
04-24-1972 Per Curiam, Unknown
04-24-1972 Per Curiam, Unknown
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
The motion by Vermont for leave to file a complaint invoking our original jurisdiction against New York and against International Paper Company, a New York corporation doing business in New York, is granted. New York and International Paper Co. are given until June 19, 1972, to answer the complaint.
04-03-1972 Justice Douglas, Opinion, William O. Douglas
04-03-1972 Justice Douglas, Opinion, William O. Douglas
Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)
I agree that both this Court and the District Court have jurisdiction to entertain this case and that the appellants were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before launching their challenge. But, although the District Court should have made more complete findings of fact and conclusions of law, I would not remand simply on this score but would hold that the appellants are entitiled to judgment.
04-03-1972 Per Curiam, Unknown Justice
04-03-1972 Per Curiam, Unknown Justice
Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)
Appellants are women who contend that an Indiana welfare regulation governing eligibility for state and federal aid to dependent children contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment and the Social Security Act, 42 U.S. C. § 602 (a) (10). The regulation provides that person who seeks assistance due to separation or the desertion of a spouse is not entitled to aid until the spouse has been continuously absent for at least six months, unless there are exceptional circumstances of need. Burns Ind. Rules and Regs. (52-1001 )-2 (1967). Appellants brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of …
03-27-1972 Correspondence From Stewart To White, Potter Stewart
03-27-1972 Correspondence From Stewart To White, Potter Stewart
Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669 (1972)
Dear Byron,
I am glad to join your Per Curiam circulated today in this case.
03-27-1972 Justice Rehnquist, Dissenting, William H. Rehnquist
03-27-1972 Justice Rehnquist, Dissenting, William H. Rehnquist
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
Had Vermont sought leave to file only against International Paper, I would have no doubt that the Court's denial of leave to file was proper. Our jurisdiction of such an action is not exclusive, and an adequate alternative forum is available for prosecution of such a claim. Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemical Co., 401 U.S. 496 (1971); Iliinios v. City of Milwaukee, - U.S. - (1972).
03-27-1972 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, Potter Stewart
03-27-1972 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, Potter Stewart
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
I agree with your dissent in this case and should appreciate your adding my name to your opinion.
03-25-1972 Correspondence From Powell To Douglas, Lewis F. Powell
03-25-1972 Correspondence From Powell To Douglas, Lewis F. Powell
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
Please join me in your opinions circulated March 20.
03-23-1972 Correspondence From Marshall To Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
03-23-1972 Correspondence From Marshall To Douglas, Thurgood Marshall
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
Dear Bill:
Please join me in the three opinions you have circulated in these cases.
03-23-1972 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Douglas, William H. Rehnquist
03-23-1972 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Douglas, William H. Rehnquist
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
Please join me in your opinion for the Court in No. 45, Washington v. General Motors Corporation, and No. 49, Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, et al. I hope shortly to circulate a dissent from your opinion in No. 50, Vermontv. New York.
03-20-1972 Opinion Of The Court, William O. Douglas
03-20-1972 Opinion Of The Court, William O. Douglas
Vermont v. New York, 406 U.S. 186 (1972)
This is a motion by Vermont for leave to file a complaint invoking our original jurisdiction against New York and against International Paper Company, a New York corporation doing business in New York, and seeking to abate a public nuisance caused by a long-term discharge of wastes and sewage into Lake Champlain by way of Ticonderoga Creek.