Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al.

• 1971 • 406 U.S. 164 • Burger Court
In the case of Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's workers' compensation statute, which provided higher benefits to legitimate children than to illegitimate ones, was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that a state cannot discriminate against "illegitimate" children by denying them equal recovery rights for a parent's work-related death. The decision was based on an appeal brought...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1971
Docket: 70-5112
406 U.S. 164
92 S. Ct. 1400
31 L. Ed. 2d 768
1972 U.S. LEXIS 65
Argued: Feb 28, 1972

Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's workers' compensation statute, which provided higher benefits to legitimate children than to illegitimate ones, was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that a state cannot discriminate against "illegitimate" children by denying them equal recovery rights for a parent's work-related death. The decision was based on an appeal brought forward by Mrs. Sallie Mae Weber and her three minor dependent children after they were denied full worker’s compensation benefits following Mr. Freddie Lee Weber’s fatal accident at work due to their status as illegitimate offspring under Louisiana law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Louisiana law, which he believed did not discriminate against illegitimate children but rather distinguished between acknowledged and unacknowledged children. He contended that this distinction was based on practical considerations, such as ensuring accurate distribution of benefits and preventing fraudulent claims. Furthermore, he asserted that it is not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to judge whether state laws are wise or desirable; instead its role is to determine if they violate the Constitution. In his view, Louisiana's law did not infracate upon equal protection rights because all legitimate and acknowledged illegitimate children were treated equally under it.

Opinion written by Justice LFPowell
Decided: Apr 24, 1972
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms