Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Seventh Circuit· 8/9/1999

Karlin v. Foust

Citations

  • 188 F.3d 446
  • 1999 WL 595506

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  • holding that the question before the court was whether one enactment impliedly repealed the other, not whether the enactments are void for vagueness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).

Judges: Coffey, Cudahy, Kanne

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

84 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

53 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Karlin v. Foust

1 other CourtListener record shares 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.