Sunday, September 16, 2012
Michael H. v. Gerald D. case brief
1. Case: Michael H. v. Gerald D. (US 1989)
2. Facts: A wife had an affair & had a child by the paramour. The paramour, not the husband, is the child's father. The paramour has lived w/the child & its mot & wants his paternity rights. The ct. denied the paramour parental rights.
3. Reasoning (per Scalia, J.):
a. To identify a fundamental right, we look at the most specific level at which a relevant tradition protecting or denying the asserted right can be identified. (Here; at the most specific level, have we historically protected a family relationship like the one between the paramour & the child? The answer is no.)
b. Threats to the unitary family unit must be struck down.
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...