Supreme Court· 1/17/1973
Gomez v. Perez
Citations
- 409 U.S. 535
- 93 S. Ct. 872
- 35 L. Ed. 2d 56
- 1973 U.S. LEXIS 116
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that denying a child a judicially enforceable right to needed support simply because its natural father is not married to its mother is not constitutionally justifiable
- holding that an illegitimate child is guaranteed a right of support from his father
- holding the state could show no constitutionally sufficient justification for refusing to recognize illegitimate children's enforceable right to support from their biological fathers when the state recognized such right with respect to legitimate children
- holding the state could show no constitutionally sufficient justification for refusing to recognize illegitimate children’s enforceable right to support from their biological fathers when the state recognized such right with respect to legitimate children
- applying strict scrutiny to a state statute concerning rights of illegitimate children
- illegitimate and legitimate children must be treated the same for purposes of child support from the father
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stewart, Reeqst-Quist
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
337 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court· 1973-04-23· cited 3,699×
- Linda R. S. v. Richard D.Supreme Court· 1973-03-05· cited 1,991×
- Linda RS v. Richard D.Supreme Court· 1973-03-05· cited 1,057×
- Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. BellSupreme Court· 1977-04-26· cited 821×
- Caban v. MohammedSupreme Court· 1979-04-24· cited 738×
- Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court· 1989-08-30· cited 719×
- Trimble v. GordonSupreme Court· 1977-04-26· cited 698×
- Clark v. JeterSupreme Court· 1988-06-06· cited 679×
- Mathews v. LucasSupreme Court· 1976-06-29· cited 621×
- Lalli v. LalliSupreme Court· 1978-12-11· cited 430×
- Mills v. HabluetzelSupreme Court· 1982-04-05· cited 349×
- In the Interest of J.W.T.Texas Supreme Court· 1994-03-30· cited 330×
- Pickett v. BrownSupreme Court· 1983-06-06· cited 309×
- Parham v. HughesSupreme Court· 1979-04-24· cited 300×
- Brown v. MerloCalifornia Supreme Court· 1973-02-20· cited 294×
- Mendillo v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-25· cited 190×
- In re the Adoption of Malpica-OrsiniNew York Court of Appeals· 1975-05-08· cited 156×
- Kopp v. Fair Political Practices CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court· 1995-11-30· cited 155×
- Matter of JacobNew York Court of Appeals· 1995-11-02· cited 154×
- Norman Purnell, Administrator of the Estate of Armstead Land, A/K/A Armstad Land v. City of Akron v. Damon Campbell Carissa CampbellSixth Circuit· 1991-02-13· cited 134×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1972-04-03· cited 5,889×
- Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court· 1972-04-24· cited 801×
- Carrington v. RashSupreme Court· 1965-03-01· cited 743×
- Levy v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Charity HospitalSupreme Court· 1968-10-14· cited 703×
- Mishkin v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1966-03-21· cited 464×
- Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability InsuranceSupreme Court· 1968-05-20· cited 331×
- Home of the Holy Infancy v. KaskaTexas Supreme Court· 1965-11-03· cited 51×
- Davis Ex Rel. Swilley v. RichardsonD. Connecticut· 1972-05-08· cited 48×
- Griffin v. RichardsonD. Maryland· 1972-07-06· cited 46×
- Lane v. PhilipsTexas Supreme Court· 1887-12-02· cited 38×
- Curtin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1950-12-13· cited 17×
- Bjorgo v. BjorgoCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1965-05-03· cited 10×
Other cases named Gomez v. Perez
3 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.