Statements (62)
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
gptkbp:caseTypes |
Civil rights
Constitutional law Public policy Judicial decision Constitutional interpretation Judicial review Health law Case law Legal framework Legal challenges Legal ethics Legal precedent Legal implications Judicial philosophy Legal standards Legal reasoning Judicial precedents Judicial activism End-of-life issues Judicial interpretation Legal analysis Judicial restraint Judicial outcomes Legal ramifications Legal doctrine Judicial principles Judicial consequences |
gptkbp:citedBy |
521 U.S. 793
|
gptkbp:controversy |
March 24, 1997
|
gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
gptkbp:decidedBy |
June 26, 1997
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Vacco v. Quill
|
gptkbp:impact |
Legal_status_of_assisted_suicide_in_the_U.S.
|
gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:Attorney_General_of_New_York
gptkb:Dr._Timothy_Quill |
gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Rational basis review Strict scrutiny standard |
gptkbp:legal_principle |
Assisted suicide
Equal protection under the law |
gptkbp:legalStatus |
Right to die movement
Discrimination against terminally ill patients Right to choose death |
gptkbp:nearby_attractions |
Protecting vulnerable populations
Preservation of life Preventing suicide |
gptkbp:outcome |
Influenced state laws on assisted suicide
New_York's_ban_on_assisted_suicide_upheld |
gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_Sandra_Day_O'Connor
|
gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Washington_v._Glucksberg
|
gptkbp:public_perception |
Divided on assisted suicide
|
gptkbp:regulatoryCompliance |
Analyzed constitutional implications
Debated implications for autonomy Discussed ethical considerations Examined state vs. federal powers Supported the dissenting opinion Critiqued_the_majority_opinion |
gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Gonzales_v._Oregon
gptkb:Roe_v._Wade gptkb:Cruzan_v._Director,_Missouri_Department_of_Health |
gptkbp:significance |
First_Supreme_Court_case_addressing_assisted_suicide
|