US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

TILESTON V. ULLMAN, 318 U. S. 44 (1943)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 318 U. S. 44 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 (1943)

Tileston v. Ullman

No. 420

Argued January 13, 14, 1943

Decided February 1, 1943

318 U.S. 44



A physician is without standing to challenging, as a deprivation of life without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state statute prohibiting the use of drugs or instruments to prevent conception, and the giving of assistance or counsel in their use, where the lives alleged to be endangered are those of patients who are not parties to the suit. P. 318 U. S. 46.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from a judgment, 129 Conn. 84, 26 A.2d 582, holding a state statute applicable to appellant and sustaining its constitutionality. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 318 U. S. 45


This case comes here on appeal to review a declaratory judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut that §§ 6246 and 6562 of the General Statutes of Connecticut of 1930, prohibiting the use of drugs or instruments to prevent conception and the giving of assistance or counsel in their use, are applicable to appellant, a registered physician, and, as applied to him, are constitutional. 129 Conn. 84, 26 A.2d 582, 588.

The suit was tried and judgment rendered on the allegations of the complaint, which are stipulated to be true. Appellant alleged that the statute, if applicable to him, would prevent his giving professional advice concerning the use of contraceptives to three patients whose condition of health was such that their lives would be endangered by childbearing, and that appellees, law enforcement officers of the state, intend to prosecute any offense against the statute, and "claim or may claim" that the proposed professional advice would constitute such an offense. The complaint set out in detail the danger to the lives of appellant's patients in the event that they should bear children, but contained no allegations asserting any claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of infringement of appellant's liberty or his property rights. The relief prayed was a declaratory judgment as to whether the statutes are applicable to appellant and, if so, whether they constitute a valid exercise of constitutional power

"within the meaning and intent of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting a state from depriving any person of life without due process of law."

On stipulation of the parties, the state superior court ordered these questions of law reserved for the consideration and advice of the Supreme Court of Errors. That court, which assumed without deciding that the case was an appropriate one for a declaratory judgment, ruled that the statutes chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 318 U. S. 46

"prohibit the action proposed to be done" by appellant, and "are constitutional."

We are of the opinion that the proceedings in the state courts present no constitutional question which appellant has standing to assert. The sole constitutional attack upon the statutes under the Fourteenth Amendment is confined to their deprivation of life -- obviously not appellant's, but his patients.' There is no allegation or proof that appellant's life is in danger. His patients are not parties to this proceeding, and there is no basis on which we can say that he has standing to secure an adjudication of his patients' constitutional right to life, which they do not assert in their own behalf. Cronin v. Adams, 192 U. S. 108, 192 U. S. 114; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 225 U. S. 550; Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U. S. 385, 236 U. S. 395; Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273; The Winnebago, 205 U. S. 354, 205 U. S. 360; Davis & Farnum Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 189 U. S. 220. No question is raised in the record with respect to the deprivation of appellant's liberty or property in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor is there anything in the opinion or judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors which indicates or would support a decision of any question other than those raised in the superior court and reserved by it for decision of the Supreme Court of Errors. That court's practice is to decline to answer questions not reserved. General Statutes § 5652; Loomis Institute v. Healy, 98 Conn. 102, 129, 119 A. 31; John J. McCarthy Co. v. Alsop, 122 Conn. 288, 298, 299, 189 A. 464.

Since the appeal must be dismissed on the ground that appellant has no standing to litigate the constitutional question which the record presents, it is unnecessary to consider whether the record shows the existence of a genuine case or controversy essential to the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. Cf. Nashville, C. & St.L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 288 U. S. 259.


ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™