Linda R. S. v. Richard D. | |
---|---|
Argued December 6, 1972 Decided March 5, 1973 | |
Full case name | Linda R.S. v. Richard D. Et al. |
Citations | 410 U.S. 614 ( more ) 93 S. Ct. 1146; 35 L. Ed. 2d 536; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 99 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | 335 F. Supp. 804 (N.D. Tex. 1971) |
Holding | |
Appellant lacks standing because her monetary injury would not be redressed by criminal prosecution. Although appellant has an interest in receiving child support payments, she did not allege facts sufficient to show that her injury resulted from Texas's refusal to enforce Art. 602 against the child's father. [1] | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Marshall, joined by Burger, Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist |
Dissent | White, joined by Douglas |
Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan |
Laws applied | |
Art. 602 of the Texas Penal Code |
Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a ruling that a particular section of a Texas Penal Code did not apply to mothers with out-of-wedlock children. The case was argued on December 6, 1972 and decided on March 5, 1973. [2] Linda R. S., the petitioner and appellant, was the mother of the out of wedlock child. Richard D., the respondent and appellee, was the father of the out of wedlock child.
Linda R. S., the mother of an out of wedlock child, brought an action to enjoin the "discriminatory application" of Art. 602 of the Texas Penal Code, providing that any "parent" who fails to support his "children" is subject to prosecution but by state judicial construction applies only to married parents. Linda R. S. sought to enjoin the local district attorney from refraining to prosecute the father of her child for not providing child support. The three-judge District Court dismissed the action for lack of standing. [3]
The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's holding in a 5–4 decision. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Potter Stewart, and William Rehnquist. Citing Flast v. Cohen , the Court held that "in the unique context of a challenge to a criminal statute, appellant has failed to allege a sufficient nexus between her injury and the government action which she attacks to justify judicial intervention." [1] [4] In December 1981, in Leeke v. Timmerman, the Supreme Court affirmed the precedent in Linda R. S. v. Richard D.. [5] Four judges wrote two separate dissenting notes.
Justice White, with Justice Douglas joining, wrote that "children born out of wedlock ... have been excluded intentionally from the class of persons protected by a particular criminal law. They do not get the protection of the laws that other women and children get. Under Art. 602, they are rendered nonpersons; a father may ignore them with full knowledge that he will be subjected to no penal sanctions." [2]
Justice Blackmun, with Justice Brennan joining, saw "no reason to decide that question in the absence of a live, ongoing controversy because of Gomez v. Perez , 409 U.S. 535 (1973)." [2]
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected the right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many State abortion laws, and it sparked an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner, Rubin Gottesman, on three charges of trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos featuring the underaged Traci Lords. In 1989, a federal judge found Gottesman guilty and later sentenced him to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.
Capital punishment in India is the highest legal penalty for crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) is the court of last resort for all criminal matters in Texas. The Court, which is based in the Supreme Court Building in Downtown Austin, is composed of a presiding judge and eight judges.
Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This decision deals primarily with the civil rights of illegitimate children, specifically regarding their ability to sue on a deceased parent's behalf. It held that the right of recovery may not be denied merely because a person is the illegitimate child of the deceased because such a law would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.
Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982.
Richard D. Bennett is a United States Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Born in Maryland, Bennett is a graduate of Severn School, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. He previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney and the United States Attorney for Maryland, and was awarded multiple commendations for his service. In private practice, Bennett was a partner in a major Maryland law firm, where he specialized in white collar criminal defense. Appointed to the federal bench in 2003, he took senior status in 2021. While maintaining an active trial docket in the District of Maryland, Bennett has increasingly been sitting by designation with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Symm v. United States, 439 U.S. 1105 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court summarily affirmed United States v. Texas, holding unconstitutional the denial to Prairie View students of the presumption of bona fide residency extended to other Waller County students.
Stephanos Bibas is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Before his appointment to the bench, Bibas was a professor of law and criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he also served as director of its Supreme Court clinic.
Child sexual abuse laws in the United States have been enacted as part of the nation's child protection policies.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.
Perjury is the name of an offence under the Criminal Code which is applicable in the Southern states of Nigeria. The offence of false evidence under the Penal Code, which is applicable in the Northern states of Nigeria, is equivalent.
R v Coote is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1873 dealing with the powers of the provinces under the British North America Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners.
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if that is an essential witness for the defendant, a limitation of the broad right to present a defense recognized in Washington v. Texas (1967).
Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court family law case which argued that a New York law, which allowed unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, a veto over the adoption of that couple's children, was discriminatory.
The Supreme Court of Iran is the highest juridical authority in Iran, established to supervise the correct implementation of laws by courts of justice and consisting of the most prominent judges of the country. The head of the judiciary assigns criteria to ensure uniformity of judicial procedure and to carry out all legal responsibilities.
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.