The Rights Of The State Of Connecticut

Jurisdiction and venue are both very important factors in the court of law. Jurisdiction is the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and over certain types of legal cases. Venue on the other hand is the proper or most convenient location for trial of a case, usually the district of county where the crime was committed. Jurisdiction and venue share similarities as well as differences. These two are similar because they both deal with the location of the case, however they are different because jurisdiction deals more so with power, and venue refers to the county or district within a state of the U.S. where the lawsuit is to be tried.

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that prohibited the use and education of contraceptives to both married and unmarried women, men, etc. Since this law was said to be seldom enforced, a Planned Parenthood in New Haven, Connecticut decided to take the risk. The executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, and a doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, Dr. C. Lee Buxton, were arrested, found guilty, and fined $100 each (equivalent to about $750 U.S. today) for counseling a married couple about contraceptives and prescribing birth control to the wife. They appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where the Connecticut court upheld their conviction. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of the

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper

A general reading of the opinion reveals that the case involves a question as to whether there was any substantial evidence to show that the individual defendants participated in the battery, and that defendant Rose City was liable vicariously

“Defendant”, “you”, and “your” refer to the party or parties to whom these Interrogatories are directed and all other persons acting on behalf of such party, including, but not limited to,

The defendant is the Australian couple Matthew and Annette Palmer, while the plaintiff is Nader Mohareb. The role of the defendant in the civil case is the person being sued, while the plaintiff’s role is the person taking the defendant to court to attempt to sue them.

During the years leading up to and after 1973, there were numerous events and situations that occurred. Before 1965, the idea of right to privacy was barely used, but Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) changed that. “The case involved a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). A doctor and a family-planner were arrested for distributing the use of contraceptives for couples in need. They were eventually brought to court by the state and were convicted. The case was taken to the Supreme Court and was later decided that everyone is entitled to their “right to privacy.” This set the precedent for Roe v. Wade because without Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision might be completely different than what it is now. A court case called Rust v. Sullivan was related to abortion. It specified that “family planning services receiving federal funds could not provide women any counseling regard abortion” (Edwards III, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 131). This decision created public scrutiny as the decision would violate the First Amendment. President Clinton eventually lifted the ban on abortion counseling as it

On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the

Defendant: the person being sued or accused by plaintiff in the court of law (Clarkson, Miller, Frank, Cross chapter 1). Reckitt & Colman, Inc. will be referred to in this analysis as “R&C” from here on forward.

Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Buxton, a licensed physician serving as Medical Director for the League, brought this case forward. They were arrested on the charge of giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married couples on preventing contraception. At the League, they would examine the wife then prescribe what they thought was the best contraceptive device or material. At the time of these actions, Connecticut had two statutes (§§ 53-52 and 54-196) that state the following: “any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days” and “any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender.”

Blackmun argued that the right to privacy, as defined in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, included “the abortion decision.” In the ninth amendment, Blackmun argued, was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However, despite this argument of a woman’s right to end her pregnancy being cover under the “right to privacy” as established in Griswold,

It is not necessary that the plaintiff be named. The test will be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with the plaintiff to the conclusion that he was the person referred to : Knuppfer v London Express [1944] AC 116.

Abortion did not immediately engrave itself onto public agenda; it had help. The legal debate over the use of birth control proved to be the catalyst needed to propel abortion to the Supreme Court and into the ranks of public policy. The birth control movement was significant to Roe v. Wade because it served as a key in which to unlock the gates of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts decision to hear Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that challenged the Connecticut statute prohibiting anyone to “use any drug, article, or instrument to prevent conception or to give assistance or counsel in its use (p.39)”, is arguably the most significant factor in the Court’s

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.