§Why CasetextPricing

Sara Myers et al., Plaintiffs, Eric A. Seiff, et al., Appellants,v.Eric Schneiderman,, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,390 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

  2. Washington v. Glucksberg

    521 U.S. 702 (1997)   Cited 2,633 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide

  3. Obergefell v. Hodges

    576 U.S. 644 (2015)   Cited 848 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right of same-sex couples to marry in light of doctrinal developments, as well as fundamentally changed social understanding

  4. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

    505 U.S. 833 (1992)   Cited 1,859 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a spousal notification provision was unconstitutional

  5. Lawrence v. Texas

    539 U.S. 558 (2003)   Cited 1,153 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding statute that criminalizes two persons of same sex engaging in intimate sexual conduct unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

  6. Roe v. Wade

    410 U.S. 113 (1973)   Cited 4,089 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that end of pregnancy did not moot the case because the plaintiff was capable of becoming pregnant again

  7. Cruzan ex rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

    497 U.S. 261 (1990)   Cited 853 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment"

  8. Vacco v. Quill

    521 U.S. 793 (1997)   Cited 483 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York's assisted suicide law had a rational basis, therefore comporting with equal protection, despite its controversy among medical experts

  9. Immuno Ag. v. Moor-Jankowski

    77 N.Y.2d 235 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 375 times
    Holding that the New York State Constitution independently provides protection for statements of opinion greater than those required by the First Amendment

  10. Rivers v. Katz

    67 N.Y.2d 485 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 274 times
    Recognizing right of involuntarily committed patient to refuse unwanted administration of anti-psychotic medication