JAMES VILSAINT v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that res judicata does not bar claims in a case involving “important human values” and “even a slight change of circumstances”
• holding that because “there was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped cure,” the law did not “advance Texas’[s] legitimate interest in protecting women’s health”
• holding that because “there was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped cure,” the law did not “advance Texas’[s] legitimate interest in protecting women’s health”
• holding that losing earlier preen-forcment facial challenge did not preclude postenforcement as-applied challenge
• holding that an admitting-privileges requirement presented a substantial obstacle because it caused the closure of half of Texas' clinics and effectively made abortions unavailable to women in vast portions of the state
• holding Texas law facially unconstitutional where it placed an “ ‘undue burden’ on [a] constitutional right”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).