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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
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 : www.chanroblesbar.com 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 www.chanrobles.com


MEMORIAL HOSP. V. MARICOPA COUNTY, 415 U. S. 250 (1974)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 415 U. S. 250 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County

No. 72-847

Argued November 6, 1973

Decided February 26, 1974

415 U.S. 250

Syllabus

This is an appeal from a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of an Arizona statute requiring a year's residence in a county as a condition to an indigent's receiving nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at the county's expense.

Held: The durational residence requirement, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, creates an "invidious classification" that impinges on the right of interstate travel by denying newcomers "basic necessities of life." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618. Pp. 415 U. S. 253-270.

(a) Such a requirement, since it operates to penalize indigents for exercising their constitutional right of interstate migration, must be justified by a compelling state interest. Shapiro v. Thompson, supra; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330. Pp. 415 U. S. 253-262.

(b) The State has not shown that the durational residence requirement is "legitimately defensible" in that it furthers a compelling state interest, and none of the purposes asserted as justification for the requirement -- fiscal savings, inhibiting migration of indigents generally, deterring indigents from taking up residence in the county solely to utilize the medical facilities, protection of longtime residents who have contributed to the community particularly by paying taxes, maintaining public support of the county hospital, administrative convenience in determining bona fide residence, prevention of fraud, and budget predictability -- satisfies the State's burden of justification and insures that the State, in pursuing its asserted objectives, has chosen means that do not unnecessarily impinge on constitutionally protected interests. Pp. 415 U. S. 262-269.

108 Ariz. 373, 498 P.2d 461, reversed and remanded.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J.,and BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. DOUGLAS, J., filed a separate chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 415 U. S. 251

opinion, post, p. 415 U. S. 270. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 415 U. S. 277.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED