In the Matter of the Child of: M. E. P. and T. H. V., Parents
Syllabus
1. The district court did not err by determining that a five-year-old child with an aggressive form of cancer is in need of protection or services because his parents had rejected a physician's recommendation that the child continue to receive a chemotherapy treatment that is widely accepted for the child's type of cancer and likely is necessary for the child's survival. 2. The district court's order requiring chemotherapy treatment for a five-year- old child with an aggressive form of cancer, over his parents' objection, does not violate the parents' constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of their child in light of the district court's findings that the chemotherapy treatment is well accepted in the medical community and that the child's probability of survival is more than 90 percent with the treatment and less than 20 percent without the treatment.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “the provisions of the ADEA . . . evidence congressional intent to foreclose actions for age discrimination under § 1983”
- reasoning that Age Discrimination in Employment Act forecloses actions for age discrimination under Sec. 1983
- holding that ADEA provides exclusive judicial remedy for age discrimination in employment
- holding that the ADEA “foreclose[d] age discrimination suits under § 1983”
- holding that the ADEA “foreclose[d] age discrimination suits under § 1983”
- observing that a city police department, even if it were a person, “may not conspire with itself”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
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.