Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bioethicists note that the case is the first time a U.S. hospital has been allowed to remove life sustaining support contrary to the wishes of the legal guardian and lacking advance directives from the patient themselves. [citation needed] This, the bioethicists claim, makes the issue precedent-setting
A man is charged with critically harming his child, who is on life support. If the child dies, the man may be charged with murder. Tony Bland: England Sheffield: 1993 Bland was the first patient in English legal history to be allowed to die by the courts through the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment. Carol Carr: United States Georgia: 2002
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, struck down a Washington law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.
Ultimately, Young instituted a federal habeas action. The court determined that the Community Protection Act was civil and, therefore, it could not violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto guarantees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the case turned on whether the Act was punitive "as applied" to Young. [4] 5th
The nursing home has been cited nearly 50 times for violating federal health standards since early 2018, records show. It was also fined nine times for a total of $136,000.
In a case challenging the legality of a law limiting who can apply for judicial vacancies, a plaintiff did not have Article III standing because he failed to show that he was "able and ready" to apply for a judicial vacancy and thus did not suffer personal, concrete, and imminent injury. 8–0 Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski: 2021
Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), is a United States Supreme Court opinion that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a Supreme Court of the United States case which held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare.