Tileston v. Ullman
| Decision Date | 01 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 420,420 |
| Citation | 87 L.Ed. 603,63 S.Ct. 493,318 U.S. 44 |
| Parties | TILESTON v. ULLMAN, State's Attorney, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Morris L. Ernst, of New York City, and Edwin Borchard, of New Haven, Conn., for appellant.
Messrs. Abraham S. Ullman and William L. Beers, both of New Haven, Conn., for appellees.
This case comes here on appeal to review a declaratory judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut that §§ 6246 and 6562 of the General Statutes of Connecticut of 1930 prohibiting the use of drugs or instruments to prevent conception, and the giving of assistance or counsel in their use—are applicable to appellant, a registered physician, and as applied to him are constitutional. 129 Conn. 84, 26 A.2d 582, 588.
The suit was tried and judgment rendered on the allegations of the complaint which are stipulated to be true. Appellant alleged that the statute, if applicable to him, would prevent his giving professional advice concerning the use of contraceptives to three patients whose condition of health was such that their lives would be endangered by child-bearing, and that appellees, law enforcement officers of the state, intend to prosecute any offense against the statute and 'claim or may claim' that the proposed professional advice would constitute such an offense. The complaint set out in detail the danger to the lives of appellant's patients in the event that they should bear children, but contained no allegations asserting any claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of infringement of appellant's liberty or his property rights. The relief prayed was a declaratory judgment as to whether the statutes are applicable to appellant and if so whether they constitute a valid exercise of constitutional power 'within the meaning and intent of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting a state from depriving any person of life without due process of law'. On stipulation of the parties the state superior court ordered these questions of law reserved for the consideration and advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. That court, which assumed without deciding that the case was an appropriate one for a declaratory judgment, ruled that the statutes 'prohibit the action proposed to be done' by appellant and 'are constitutional'.
We are of the opinion that the proceedings in the state courts present no constitutional question which appellant has standing to assert. The sole constitutional attack upon the statutes under the Fourteenth Amendment is confined to their deprivation of life—obviously not appellant's but his patients'. There is no allegation or proof that appellant's life is in danger. His patients are not parties to this proceeding and there is no basis on which we can say that he has standing to secure an adjudication of his patients' constitutional right to life,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrow Lakes Dairy, Inc. v. Gill
...plaintiff which could possibly qualify as a legally protectible interest. An applicable analogy is furnished by Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943) and by Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. City of Chicago (7 Cir. 1940), 115 F.2d 627. See Boeing Airplane Co. v. Board of Count......
-
Population Services International v. Wilson
...standing alone, might not confer on these plaintiffs the right to represent the interests of third-parties, see Tileston v. Ullman, 381 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943), this role, combined with other factors which were also present in Eisenstadt, leads this Court to conclude that......
-
United States v. City of Yonkers
...to confer standing. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); see also Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943) (per curiam) (plaintiff who challenges constitutionality of act but fails to allege any injury to himself has no standin......
-
Warth v. Seldin
...and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. E.g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943). See United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960); Barrows v. Jackson, supra. Without su......
-
An Interview with Kent L. Richland
...Elec. Frontier Found., 867 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 22. 490 U.S. 605 (1989). 23. Id. at 617. 24. Id. at 619 (citing Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 46 (1943)). 25. See, e.g. , Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1070 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that standing of an intervenor was irrelevant whe......
-
Prosecution Insights Gleaned from a Review of Recent Patent Examiner Training
...Elec. Frontier Found., 867 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 22. 490 U.S. 605 (1989). 23. Id. at 617. 24. Id. at 619 (citing Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 46 (1943)). 25. See, e.g. , Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1070 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that standing of an intervenor was irrelevant whe......
-
When 30 Years of Practice Goes Against You: Patent Venue Ruling 'Ignores' Supreme Court Precedent
...Elec. Frontier Found., 867 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 22. 490 U.S. 605 (1989). 23. Id. at 617. 24. Id. at 619 (citing Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 46 (1943)). 25. See, e.g. , Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1070 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that standing of an intervenor was irrelevant whe......
-
Proposed Citizens Right to Standing Act-finding the Keys to Unlock the Courthouse Doors
...Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976), whether the plaintiff may justifiably assert rights of third parties, see Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 (1943), whether the plaintiff claims interest merely as a taxpayer, see Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968); Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. ......