\Italia\ Societa Anonima Di Navigazione v. Durning

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Casey's decision to uphold Pennsylvania law did not control constitutionality of Wisconsin law
• recognizing that Casey’s decision to uphold Pennsylvania law did not control constitutionality of Wisconsin law
• holding that the question before the court was whether one enactment impliedly repealed the other, not whether the enactments are void for vagueness
• stating that conflicting statutes do not create a void for vagueness issue, but rather “create[] a question of implied repeal under Wisconsin law”
• explaining that merely because one physician would choose “to perform an emergency abortion” under certain circumstances, while others would not, does not necessarily mean the physician who performed the abortion exercised unreasonable medical judgment
• upholding Wisconsin’s waiting period because the evidence plaintiffs presented to distinguish their case from Casey was not convincing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).