Timeline for Have I misread Hermesmann v. Seyer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2022 at 5:20 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
changed title to question in body
|
| Dec 8, 2022 at 17:22 | comment | added | David Siegel | This post was closed once as opinion-based by vote, and reopened by a moderator, in my view correctly. The question includes incorrect statements of what the decision implies, and these can be refuted objectively. Objective sources can show that this decision is consistent with many other court rulings on the same issues, which removes it from what are usually thought of as the class of controversial court decisions. No opinion is needed for any of that. One can still have an opinion on whether the ruling is sound public policy. But that is not required to answer the question. | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 17:22 | comment | added | Michael Hall | There's an excellent question that can be asked about the inconsistency in determining that an under age victim of a crime, (incapable of consent) is somehow capable of consenting to, (or rather should be forced into...) an 18 year contract and financial obligation as a result of a personal healthcare decision made later by the criminal. (not to mention disparity resulting from differences in how genders or sexes are treated legally) This question, however, is not it. | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 16:18 | comment | added | David Siegel | You mis-read the case. It doesn't say any of that. It says only that parents, all parents, have a legal duty to support their children so far as their means permit, and that the circumstances of conception do not alter this duty. That idea is not new, and is widely supported. Child support is not contractual, and does not depend on conception being intended. That law could be changed, but is in effect in many different jurisdictions, nor is it new. | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 13:17 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 14, 2022 at 3:03 | |||||
| Dec 8, 2022 at 12:13 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 8, 2022 at 12:10 | history | edited | Trish | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
de-opinioning the answer requirement
|
| Dec 8, 2022 at 11:43 | history | reopened | Dale M♦ | ||
| Dec 8, 2022 at 7:19 | history | closed |
bdb484 Jen Nate Eldredge BlueDogRanch user35069 |
Opinion-based | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:53 | answer | added | David Siegel | timeline score: 11 | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:52 | comment | added | ohwilleke | Very similar issues are addressed at law.stackexchange.com/questions/79652/… | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 8, 2022 at 7:19 | |||||
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:19 | history | edited | David Siegel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
proper cite of case and link
|
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:14 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Opinions about laws are off-topic for Law.SE, but such a question might be okay on the Politics stack exchange. Be sure to read their posting guidelines carefully before asking. | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:11 | comment | added | bdb484 | I'm voting to close because there is no correct answer to this question. However, possible answers would include: because it happened decades ago, because it is only binding in Kansas, because boys having sex with women aren't particularly sympathetic, or because it's such a factual outlier that it has very limited real-world impact. | |
| S Dec 8, 2022 at 2:48 | review | First questions | |||
| Dec 8, 2022 at 7:16 | |||||
| S Dec 8, 2022 at 2:48 | history | asked | Ethan Miller | CC BY-SA 4.0 |