Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo
United States Supreme Court
140 S. Ct. 2103, 207 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2020)
The Supreme Court no longer recognizes a constitutional right to abortion.
When it did, however, states regularly challenged that right by enacting new laws designed to curtail abortion access. In June Medical Services versus Russo, the Supreme Court considered whether a Louisiana law was constitutional.
Louisiana passed a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic where they performed abortions.
A few weeks before the statute took effect, two abortion providers and three clinics, including June Medical Services, which we'll collectively call June, filed a lawsuit against the secretary of Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals.
June challenged the statute's constitutionality, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled for June, declaring the law unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoining its enforcement.
The district court found that the statute didn't promote the state's interest in women's health and that enforcing the statute would reduce the number of providers and clinics to one or two of each in the entire state. Accordingly, the court determined that the statute didn't advance a legitimate state interest and unduly burdened abortion access. Louisiana appealed to the fifth circuit, which reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo
United States Supreme Court
140 S. Ct. 2103, 207 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2020)
The Supreme Court no longer recognizes a constitutional right to abortion.
When it did, however, states regularly challenged that right by enacting new laws designed to curtail abortion access. In June Medical Services versus Russo, the Supreme Court considered whether a Louisiana law was constitutional.
Louisiana passed a law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic where they performed abortions.
A few weeks before the statute took effect, two abortion providers and three clinics, including June Medical Services, which we'll collectively call June, filed a lawsuit against the secretary of Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals.
June challenged the statute's constitutionality, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled for June, declaring the law unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoining its enforcement.
The district court found that the statute didn't promote the state's interest in women's health and that enforcing the statute would reduce the number of providers and clinics to one or two of each in the entire state. Accordingly, the court determined that the statute didn't advance a legitimate state interest and unduly burdened abortion access. Louisiana appealed to the fifth circuit, which reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries








![Ventura v Kyle Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Ventura v. Kyle | 825 F.3d 876 (2016)
The federal rules of evidence prohibit evidence of a defendants insurance coverage for some purposes but not others.
Nonetheless, attorneys must be careful discussing insurance at trial as the court explains in Ventura versus Kyle.
Chris Kyle, a former Navy SEAL sniper, wrote a memoir called American Sniper. In the book, Kyle recounted how he punched a celebrity referred to as Scruff Face in a bar fight after Scruff Face said offensive things about America and the SEALs.
After the books release, Kyle identified Scruff Face as Jesse Ventura in interviews. Ventura was a former governor of Minnesota and professional wrestler among other things. Ventura sued Kyle for defamation and other claims, alleging that Kyle had made up the whole story.
Following Kyles death, his wife, Tayah, was substituted as defendant as the executor of Kyles estate. Two witnesses from American Snipers publisher, Harper Collins, testified at trial. Venturas lawyer questioned both witnesses about Harper Collins and Kyles insurance coverage to try to show the witnesses were biased in Kyles favor. Both witnesses denied knowing anything about insurance.
During closing arguments, Venturas lawyer emphasized that both HarperCollins witnesses had denied knowledge that Harper Collins insurer was paying Kyles legal bills and would pay any damages on the defamation claim.
The district court denied Kyles motion for a mistrial because of the insurance references.
The jury struggled to reach a decision, ultimately reaching a nonunanimous verdict after five days.
The jury awarded Ventura five hundred thousand dollars on the defamation claim.
Kyle moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing that the jurys award was tainted by the admission of prejudicial information and argument about Kyles alleged insurance.
The district court denied the motion.
Kyle appealed to the eighth circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [insert link of case brief on Quimbee]
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [insert the link of the case brief on Quimbee]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Ventura v Kyle Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/k00mas4lKHg/mqdefault.jpg)

