regarding the disposition of frozen embryos is A.Z. v. B.Z., 431 Mass. 150, 725 N.E.2d 1051 (2000). It involved the familiar pattern of IVF resulting in unused frozen embryos, followed by a divorce. There, however, the 1991 IVF resulted in the birth of twins. Id. at 1053. Moreover, the consent forms, signed by the husband in blank, had been completed by the wife to provide that on the donors’ separation the embryos were to be given to the wife for implantation. Id. at 1054. The trial court, at the husband’s request, had permanently enjoined the wife “from utilizing” the frozen embryos. Id. at 1054-55. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed. The court determined that the consent form was not binding “[i]n view of 57, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1734, 56 L.Ed.2d 185, 194 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we should not decide constitutional
holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods holding that the termination of electric service by a public utility for nonpayment of bills was not state action holding that warehouse companys sale of customers goods for nonpayment of storage charges did not constitute state action though authorized by state statute holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law holding that speaking to potential customers to determine an appropriate price does not constitute an offer for sale