Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps were upset over the provision of an in vitro statute that could possibly create custodial liability for the medical professionals who performed the procedures for any consenting adults. P initiated a class action and wanted the statute declared unconstitutional because it violated the first, fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. The Illinois Attorney General, Hartigan (D) opposed this suit on the grounds that his department had issued an opinion at to P's interpretation which precluded their version of enforcement and basically no custodial liability was incurred by the medical professionals performing the procedure.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.