California Court Denies Wrongful Birth Claim

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-274
Author(s):  
C.L.
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Northern District ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Wrongful Birth ◽  
Birth Control Pills ◽  
Burden Of Persuasion

On July 3, 1996, in Jones v. United States(No. 93-20137, 1996 U.S. Dist. WL 382937 (N.D. Cal. July 3,1996)), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that plaintiffs in a wrongful birth action cannot recover costs or damages associated with the birth and upbringing of their daughter absent evidence of causation and proof to satisfy liability requirements. Plaintiffs scientific evidence regarding the alleged interaction between antibiotics and oral contraceptives did not satisfy the Daubertstandard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,509 US. 579, 597 (1993) (remanded, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, lnc.,43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,116 S. Ct. 189 (1995))) for admissibility developed by the Supreme Court. In addition, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of persuasion on duty of care and causation.On January 16, 1992, Karyn Jones went to a U.S. Army gynecologist, Dr. James Murphy, to obtain a prescription for birth control pills.

The Case of the Appam

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 809-831
Author(s):  
James Brown Scott
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Newport News ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Seas

On July 29,1916, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered a decree to restore to the British claimants the steamer Appam, formerly an English merchant vessel, captured by the German cruiser Moewe upon the high seas and sent into Newport News to be laid up pending the war between Great Britain and Germany. In a very elaborate opinion, the court held that the Appam had no right under international law or the treaty with Prussia of May 1, 1828, to use an American port as an asylum; that it did not have a right under the circumstances to enter an American port at all; that by so doing it violated the neutrality of the United States, and was therefore, with the proceeds of the cargo, to be restored, according to the American practice, to the British owners at the date of capture. The case is a very interesting one from the standpoint of international law, and by reason of its importance, it is to be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in order that, as far as the United States is concerned, a definite decision may be reached upon the points of law involved. The facts of the case and the reasoning of the District Court will, however, be set forth at this time and in this place.

Extradition statute—constitutional law—separation of powers—injunction against U.S. Government— class action: Lobue v. Christopher. 893 F.Supp. 65.

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-105
Author(s):  
Judith Hippler Bello ◽  
Jacques Semmelman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Class Action ◽  
District Court ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Northern District

U.S. District Court, D.C., August 31, 1995; modified September 15, 1995.This action involved a constitutional challenge to the 147-year-old extradition statute, 18 U.S.C. §3184, on die ground that it violates the separation of powers. Plaintiffs were two individuals who had been found extraditable to Canada, pursuant to the extradition treaty between die United States and Canada, by a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois. They brought an action in the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State, the Department of State, and the United States for a judgment declaring the extradition statute unconstitutional, and an injunction against their extradition. Plaintiffs also sought certification of a class consisting of persons who are or will be under threat of extradition from the United States pursuant to the statute, and an injunction against any such extradition. The court held (per Lamberth, J.) that (1) the extradition statute violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional; (2) the United States is enjoined from taking any further act toward the surrender of the plaintiffs to Canada; and (3) the proposed class is certified, and the United States is enjoined from surrendering anyone under the statute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document