Anspach v. City of Philadelphia, Department of Public Health

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “minors are individuals who enjoy constitutional rights of privacy under substantive due process.”
• noting that First Amendment free expression claim considers whether challenged policy substantially burdened plaintiff's practice of religion
• noting that courts are to “remain mindful that section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties of care arising out of tort law”
• holding the “failure to raise an argument in one’s opening brief waives it”
• finding no constitutional right to parental notification when a minor child seeks to obtain contraception
• taking judicial notice of an FDA publication, “not for the truth of its contents, but rather as evidence of the information provided by the federal government to healthcare providers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).