Criminal Law Commons^™

01-17-1973 Justice White, Per Curiam, Byron R. White

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

The issue presented by the appeal is whether the laws of Texas may constitutionally grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers and at the same time deny that right to illegitimate children.

01-17-1973 Justice White, Per Curiam, Byron R. White

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the laws of Texas may constitutionally grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers and at the same time deny that right to illegitimate children.

01-16-1973 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

01-09-1973 Correspondence From Marshall To White, Thurgood Marshall

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Byron:

Please join me in your per curiam of 1-5-73.

01-08-1973 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Byron:

I think your revised approach is a sound one and I join you.

01-08-1973 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Associated Enterprises v. Toltec Watershed Improv. Dist. 410 U.S. 743 (1973)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.

01-08-1973 Correspondence From Brennan To White, William J. Brennan

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Byron:

I agree with the Per Curiam you have prepared in the above.

01-08-1973 Correspondence From Blackmun To White, Harry A. Blackmun

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Byron:

Your proposed per curiam, circulated late Friday, convinces me, and I would now like to join it and to withdraw my tentative vote to DIG.

01-07-1973 Correspondence From Powell To White, Lewis F. Powell

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Byron:

Please join me.

01-05-1973 Correspondence From Blackmun To Stewart, Harry A. Blackmun

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Potter:

l would be willing to join your memorandum proposed for this case.

01-02-1973 Correspondence From Burger To Stewart, Warren E. Burger

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

Dear Potter:

As little as I like a DIG with four dissents I am prepared to join your disposition of the case.

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

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

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

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 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.]

12-15-1972 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 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.

12-14-1972 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

03-27-1972 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

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).