318 U.S. 44 (1943), 420, Tileston v. Ullman

Docket Nº:No. 420
Citation:318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603
Party Name:Tileston v. Ullman
Case Date:February 01, 1943
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 44

318 U.S. 44 (1943)

63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603

Tileston

v.

Ullman

No. 420

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 1, 1943

Argued January 13, 14, 1943

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT

Syllabus

A physician is without standing to challenging, as a deprivation of life without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state statute prohibiting the use of drugs or instruments to prevent conception, and the giving of assistance or counsel in their use, where the lives alleged to be endangered are those of patients who are not parties to the suit. P. 46.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from a judgment, 129 Conn. 84, 26 A.2d 582, holding a state statute applicable to appellant and sustaining its constitutionality.

Page 45

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

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 childbearing, 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 [63 S.Ct. 494] 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP