Armstrong v. Manzo
- Decided
- April 27, 1965
- Docket
- 149
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,943 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that failure to give proper notice violates “the rudimentary demands of due process of law” — Morgan Olson L.L.C. v. Frederico (In Re Grumman Olson Industries, Inc.) (2012)
- recognizing that the failure to give notice under Rule 245 “result[s] in a violation of fundamental due process” — In Re Marcela Ponce v. the State of Texas (2025)
- holding that failure to give proper notice violates “the rudimentary demands of due process of law” — Campos v. Aegis Realty Management Corp. (2020)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, R. Wright Armstrong, Jr., and his wife were divorced by a Texas court in 1959. Custody of their only child, Molly Page Armstrong, was awarded to Mrs. Armstrong, and the petitioner was granted “the privilege of visiting with said child at reasonable times, places, and intervals.” The divorce decree ordered the petitioner to pay $50 a month for his daughter’s support. In 1960 Mrs. Armstrong married the respondent, Salvatore E. Manzo. Two years later the Manzos filed a petition for adoption in the District Court of El Paso County, Texas, seeking to make Salvatore Manzo the legal father of Molly Page Armstrong. [1]
Texas law provides that an adoption such as this one shall not be permitted without the written consent of the child’s natural father, except in certain specified circumstances. One such exceptional circümstance is if the father. “shall have not contributed substantially to the support of such child during [a] period of two (2) years commensurate with his financial ability.” In that event, the written consent of the judge of the juvenile court of [*547] the county of the child’s residence may be accepted by the adoption court in lieu of the father’s consent. [2]
Cite this
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.