Smith v. Hartigan

556 F.Supp. 157 (1983)

Free access to 20,000 Casebriefs

Nature Of The Case

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

Facts

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.

Issues

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

Holding & Decision

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

Legal Analysis

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

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner

© 2025 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.