Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Terry CLINE, et al., petitioners, v. OKLAHOMA COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, et al., 2013 — 570 U.S. 930 · caselaw · US
General
Terry CLINE, et al., petitioners, v. OKLAHOMA COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, et al.
570 U.S. 930186 L. Ed. 2d 932·Supreme Court of the United States·2013
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Terry CLINE, et al., petitioners,
v.
OKLAHOMA COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, et al.
No. 12-1094.
Supreme Court of the United States
June 27, 2013.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted. This Court, pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla. Stat., Tit. 20, § 1601 et seq. (West 2002), respectfully certifies to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma the following question: Whether H.B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat eptopic pregnancies. Further proceedings in this case are reserved pending receipt of a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
21 NO. 3 Westlaw Journal Health Law 4