Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth

United States Supreme Court
428 U.S. 52 (1976)


Facts

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri and two physicians (plaintiffs) filed suit in federal district court against John Danforth, who was the attorney general for the State of Missouri, and others (defendants), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on the claim that a comprehensive Missouri statute regulating the performance of abortions in the state was unconstitutional. The case was a corollary to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), because the case raised issues secondary to those presented in Roe and Doe. The complaint challenged a number of provisions of the Missouri law, including § 3(3), which required the consent of a woman’s husband before the woman could obtain an abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, unless the abortion was certified by a licensed physician as necessary to preserve the life of the mother. The defendants claimed that any major change in family status, including an abortion, was a decision to be made jointly between spouses, because the abortion could affect the woman’s future childbearing potential. The plaintiffs argued that § 3(3) was solely designed to afford a husband the right to unilaterally prevent or veto an abortion, regardless of whether he was the father. The district court, by a divided vote, upheld the constitutionality of the statute as a whole. The plaintiffs petitioned for a stay of enforcement of the law pending appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.