Difference between revisions of "Fishbeck v. North Dakota"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add text.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Proceedings) |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
|format= | |format= | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
| − | }}</ref> Patrick A. Conmy, District Judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case and it was dismissed without a ruling on the merits of the case.<ref>{{REFweb | + | }}</ref> Patrick A. Conmy, District Judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case and it was dismissed without a ruling on the merits of the case.<ref name="memorandum1996">{{REFweb |
|url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmdistrict2.htm | |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/fgmdistrict2.htm | ||
|archived= | |archived= | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
|format= | |format= | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
| − | }}</ref> | + | }}</ref> The Court commented: |
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | All of the filings in the matter are extremely well done. The medical exhibits are detailed and scholarly and the credentials of those taking opposite sides on the issue of the value of routine male infant circumcision are most impressive.<ref name="memorandum1996" /> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
==Appeal== | ==Appeal== | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 6 June 2020
Construction Site
This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.
Fishbeck v. North Dakota is a North Dakota legal case from the year of 1996 that was filed by Donna Fishbeck and others on behalf of her infant son, Jonathan Fishbeck, who had been circumcised. The plaintiffs were represented by Zenas Baer of Hawley, Minnesota. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. It named the State of North Dakota as the defendant.[1]
North Dakota, had in 1995, passed a law to protect the genital integrity of females, but not males. The suit sought to protect the rights of boys under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.[1]
Proceedings
The defendant, North Dakota, argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.[2] Patrick A. Conmy, District Judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case and it was dismissed without a ruling on the merits of the case.[3] The Court commented:
All of the filings in the matter are extremely well done. The medical exhibits are detailed and scholarly and the credentials of those taking opposite sides on the issue of the value of routine male infant circumcision are most impressive.[3]
Appeal
External links
References
- ↑ a b
Baer, Zenas (7 June 1996). Complaint
, boystoo.com. Retrieved 6 June 2020. - ↑ Baer, Zenas (11 September 1996).
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
, boystoo.com. Retrieved 6 June 2020. - ↑ a b Conmy, Patrick (22 October 1996).
Memorandum and Order
.
