Milan M. Vuitch, M. D. v. James Brown Hardy, Acting Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

Fourth Circuit

Milan M. Vuitch, M. D. v. James Brown Hardy, Acting Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary

473 F.2d 1370, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11540

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1973

Docket72-1890

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 473 F.2d 1370 (Milan M. Vuitch, M. D. v. James Brown Hardy, Acting Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Milan M. Vuitch, M. D. v. James Brown Hardy, Acting Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary, 473 F.2d 1370, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11540 (4th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The district court held that petitioner had exhausted his available state remedies prior to filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus and that the writ should issue because the Maryland Therapeutic Abortion Act, 4B Ann.Code of Maryland, Art. 43, §§ 137 et seq. (1971 Repl. Vol.), under which petitioner was convicted, was unconstitutional, be *1371 cause of the limitations which it placed upon the performance of an abortion. We agree that petitioner had exhausted his available state remedies. Subsequent to the argument before us, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, - U.S. -, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton,-U.S. — , 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973). These cases make clear that the district court correctly decided the case, and we affirm on their authority.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The district court held that petitioner had exhausted his available state remedies prior to filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus and that the writ should issue because the Maryland Therapeutic Abortion Act, 4B Ann.Code of Maryland, Art. 43, §§ 137 et seq. (1971 Repl. Vol.), under which petitioner was convicted, was unconstitutional, be *1371 cause of the limitations which it placed upon the performance of an abortion. We agree that petitioner had exhausted his available state remedies. Subsequent to the argument before us, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, - U.S. -, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973) and Doe v. Bolton,-U.S. — , 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973). These cases make clear that the district court correctly decided the case, and we affirm on their authority.

Affirmed.

Abortion Statutory Interpretation –Whether Section 20-208 of the Health-General Article Prohibits Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants from Providing Medication Abortions – Whether the Same Statute Prohibits Physician Assistants from Performing Surgical Abortions

Maryland Attorney General Reports, 2020

Maryland Attorney General Opinion 105OAG003

Maryland Attorney General Reports, 2020

Hagerstown Reproductive Health Services v. Fritz

454 A.2d 846 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1983)

Ketchum v. Ward

422 F. Supp. 934 (W.D. New York, 1976)

Dr. Richard P. Mucie v. Missouri State Department of Corrections

543 F.2d 633 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)

Planned Parenthood of New York City, Inc. v. State

351 A.2d 382 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)

Leigh v. Olson

385 F. Supp. 255 (D. North Dakota, 1974)

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Texas Attorney General Reports, 1974

United States Ex Rel. Dr. Jesse Williams, II v. Peter Preiser, Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services of Thestate of New York

497 F.2d 337 (Second Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 F.2d 1370, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milan-m-vuitch-m-d-v-james-brown-hardy-acting-warden-of-the-maryland-ca4-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack