JANE ROE, PLAINTIFF, V. HENRY WADE, DEFENDANT, V. JAMES HUBERT HALLFORD, M.D., INTERVENOR. JOHN DOE AND MARY DOE, PLAINTIFFS, V. HENRY WADE, DEFENDANT. CIV. A. NOS. 3–3690–B, 3–3691–C. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, N. D. TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION. JUNE 17, 1970. Action for judgment declaring Texas abortion laws unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement. The thr…
Two similar cases are presently before the Court on motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant in both cases is Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas. In once action plaintiffs are John and Mary Doe, and in the other Jane Roe and James Hubert Hallford, M.D., intervenor.1 [1] From their respective positions of married coup…
This action came on for hearing on motions for summary judgment before a three-judge court composed of Irving L. Goldberg, Circuit Judge, Sarah T. Hughes and W. M. Taylor, Jr., District Judges. The defendant in both cases is Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas. In one action plaintiffs are John and Mary Doe, husband and wife, and in the other Jane Roe and James Hubert Hallford, M…
Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.
Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.
User Comments