Difference between revisions of "Gajewski v. State of North Dakota (2010)"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
'''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' is a circumcision lawsuit from the state of North Dakota. | '''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''' is a circumcision lawsuit from the state of North Dakota. | ||
| − | Mervin Gajewski, 78, was in a Watford City hospital when he heard the blood-curdling screams of a newborn boy who was suffering the extreme [[pain]] of an unanesthetized medically-unnecessary [[circumcision]]. He later decided to sue the State of North Dakota in an effort to get these cruel procedures halted in North Dakota. The court, however, ruled that a 78-year-old man was not representative of newborn infant boys so he lacked standing to sue and his case was dismissed.<ref>{{REFnews | + | Mervin Gajewski, 78, was in a Watford City hospital when he heard the blood-curdling screams of a newborn boy who was suffering the extreme [[pain]] of an unanesthetized, medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]]. He later decided to sue the State of North Dakota in an effort to get these cruel procedures halted in North Dakota. The court, however, ruled that a 78-year-old man was not representative of newborn infant [[intact]] boys so he lacked standing to sue and his case was dismissed.<ref>{{REFnews |
|title=North Dakota Man Sues to Stop Infant Circumcision | |title=North Dakota Man Sues to Stop Infant Circumcision | ||
|url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2005/2005-05-22_theforum.php | |url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2005/2005-05-22_theforum.php | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | + | ==Appeal== | |
| − | Gajewski appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, however the dismissal was upheld.<ref>{{REFweb | + | Gajewski appealed the dismissal to the [https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court Supreme Court of North Dakota], however the dismissal was upheld.<ref>{{REFweb |
|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/2010/20100231.html | |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/north-dakota/supreme-court/2010/20100231.html | ||
|title=Gajewski v. State | |title=Gajewski v. State | ||
| Line 38: | Line 37: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | The case was dismissed | + | The case was dismissed based on procedural issues. The merits of the case were never considered by any court. |
| + | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
| + | * [[Fishbeck v. North Dakota]] | ||
| + | * [[United States of America]] | ||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
[[Category:Lawsuit]] | [[Category:Lawsuit]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Litigation over circumcision]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Pain]] | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:USA]] | [[Category:USA]] | ||
Latest revision as of 22:57, 26 April 2024
Gajewski v. State of North Dakota (2010) is a circumcision lawsuit from the state of North Dakota.
Mervin Gajewski, 78, was in a Watford City hospital when he heard the blood-curdling screams of a newborn boy who was suffering the extreme pain of an unanesthetized, medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision. He later decided to sue the State of North Dakota in an effort to get these cruel procedures halted in North Dakota. The court, however, ruled that a 78-year-old man was not representative of newborn infant intact boys so he lacked standing to sue and his case was dismissed.[1]
Appeal
Gajewski appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, however the dismissal was upheld.[2] [3]
The case was dismissed based on procedural issues. The merits of the case were never considered by any court.
See also
References
- ↑
Warden, James (2005)."North Dakota Man Sues to Stop Infant Circumcision", The Forum. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
- ↑
Anonymous (2010). Gajewski v. State
, Justia. Retrieved 7 August 2023. - ↑ (2010).
Mervin Gajewski as next friend of all North Dakotans including intact minor males, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, Defendants and Appellees (2010)
, Findlaw. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
