Schenck v. Knight

←

Schenck v. Knight (1974)
the Arkansas Supreme Court

→

Schenck v. Knight, 255 Ark. 1008 (1974), is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. At age 14, appellant Donna Marie Schenck gave birth. In the hospital she allegedly gave up her child to the State. The trial court denied habeas relief, so the child stayed in the State's custody. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. Byrd, J., wrote a dissenting opinion, notable for its story about a mother hen he saw "attacking" a bulldozer to protect her brood.

2594579Schenck v. Knight1974the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

255 Ark. 1008

Donna Marie SCHENCK, a Minor, et al. v. Janet KNIGHT, Director of Family Services

Appeal from Garland Chancery Court

No. 73-185. --- Delivered: Feb. 3, 1974
[Rehearing denied Mar. 11, 1974].

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion Byrd

HABEAS CORPUS—CUSTODY OF INFANTS—JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS & RELIEF.—Upon the records in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a 14-year old mother to regain custody of her child, chancellor's denial of the petition and confirmation of custody in the State Social Services Department based upon the best interests of the child held not against the preponderance of the evidence, although the mother is not prevented from presenting evidence to the chancellor of changed conditions that would justify a change in custody.

Appeal from Garland Chancery Court, James L. Chesnutt, Chancellor; affirmed.

Frances T. Donovan, for appellants.

Ivan H. Smith and Louis Watts, for appellee.

[Opinion of the court by Justice J. FRED JONES. Dissenting opinion by Justice CONLEY BYRD.]

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse

Schenck v. Knight

Navigation menu

Search