MOE V. DINKINS 533 F.Supp. 623 (2nd Cir. 1981) CASE BRIEF

MOE V. DINKINS

533 F.Supp. 623 (2nd Cir. 1981)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a parental consent law. Moe (Ps), a class of minors who wished to marry, filed a motion for summary judgment in their action against Dinkins (D), the town and city clerks of New York, seeking to declare unconstitutional, and enjoin the enforcement of, the parental consent requirement of N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law 15.2 and 15.3.

FACTS: Moe (P) and others sought a judgment declaring unconstitutional a parental consent requirement that males between 16-18 and females between 14-18 must obtain written consent to the marriage from both parents. The law also requires woman between 14-16 obtain not only parental consent but also judicial approval. P filed a motion for summary judgment with the plaintiff class consisting of all persons who are forced to comply with the regulations and the defendant class was all town and city clerks in New York State. The defendant class was represented by David Dinkins (D), City Clerk of New York City. Plaintiff Raoul was 18 years old, plaintiff Maria (P) was fifteen years old, and plaintiff Ricardo is their one-year-old son born out of wedlock. Raoul, P and Ricardo live as a family unit. P requested consent to marry but her mother refused because she still wants to receive welfare payments on the girl. P contends that the consent statute violates their liberty under Due Process.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner