In the Matter of Cortez

16 Cited authorities

  1. Stanley v. Illinois

    405 U.S. 645 (1972)   Cited 5,114 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Illinois could not automatically designate the children of unwed parents as wards of the state upon the death of the mother because fathers of children born out of wedlock have a "cognizable and substantial" "interest in retaining custody of [their] children" under the Constitution
  2. Roe v. Wade

    410 U.S. 113 (1973)   Cited 4,093 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that end of pregnancy did not moot the case because the plaintiff was capable of becoming pregnant again
  3. Griswold v. Connecticut

    381 U.S. 479 (1965)   Cited 3,313 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional state law that criminalized the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception"
  4. Mathews v. Diaz

    426 U.S. 67 (1976)   Cited 974 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process
  5. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld

    420 U.S. 636 (1975)   Cited 727 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a Social Security classification that excluded fathers from receipt of child-in-care benefits available to mothers
  6. Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur

    414 U.S. 632 (1974)   Cited 735 times
    Holding a conclusive presumption that pregnant teachers were unfit to continue working after reaching the fifth month of pregnancy invalid
  7. Kleindienst v. Mandel

    408 U.S. 753 (1972)   Cited 774 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that students had a "constitutional interest" in hearing a Marxist theoretician speak at academic conferences and discussions in the United States
  8. Fiallo v. Bell

    430 U.S. 787 (1977)   Cited 656 times
    Holding that legislative classification addressing which parents of U.S. citizens qualify for "special preference immigration status" survived Mandel scrutiny, but without addressing whether plaintiffs were correct in claiming that the statute infringed various constitutional interests, including the asserted "fundamental constitutional interests of United States citizens and permanent residents in a familial relationship"
  9. Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong

    426 U.S. 88 (1976)   Cited 335 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hen the Federal Government asserts an overriding national interest as justification for a discriminatory rule which would violate the Equal Protection Clause if adopted by a State, due process requires that there be a legitimate basis for presuming that the rule was actually intended to serve that interest”
  10. Shaughnessy v. Mezei

    345 U.S. 206 (1953)   Cited 631 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an excluded alien's indefinite detention on Ellis Island did not violate constitutional law because “he is treated as if he stopped at the border”