# Poe v. Ullman

> Supreme Court of the United States · October 9, 1961 · 367 U.S. 497

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422271

## Case

- **Full name:** POE Et Al. v. ULLMAN, STATE'S ATTORNEY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** October 9, 1961
- **Citations:** 367 U.S. 497; 81 S. Ct. 1752; 6 L. Ed. 2d 989; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1953
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart
- **Judges:** Frankfurter, Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, Clark, Whittaker
- **Cited by:** 1,004 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833 (1971).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422271

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that "the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected,” and noting also that the "S…
- finding a case unripe for ______ adjudication of constitutionality of state statutes where the lack of any evidence that, with the exception of one test case, the statutes had ever been enforced, even in the face of actions violating the statutes, demonstrated the state's poli…
- finding a case unripe for adjudication of constitutionality of state statutes where the lack of any evidence that, with the exception of one test case, the statutes had ever been enforced, even in the face of actions violating the statutes, demonstrated the state’s policy of n…
- holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut contraception ban where there were no prosecutions during the statute's eighty-two-year history and the statute was openly violated, despite the state's purported intention to prosecute violations
- explaining that prohibitions “against the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law” set forth in Fourteenth Amendment are applicable to state government and same prohibitions in Fifth Amendment are applicable to “the Federal Government”

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
dissenting.
For the reasons so convincingly advanced by both Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Harlan, I join them in dissenting from the dismissal of these appeals. Since the appeals are nonetheless dismissed, my dissent need go no further. However, in refraining from a discussion of the constitutional issues, I in no way imply that the ultimate result I would reach on the merits of these controversies would differ from the conclusions of my dissenting Brothers.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422271. Public record. Not legal advice.