Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Brown Vs. Oklahoma

Brown vs Oklahoma

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1972
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/103147

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
408 U.S. 914
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Brown

Respondent

Oklahoma

Excerpt

brown v. oklahoma - 408 u.s. 914 (1972) u.s. supreme court brown v. oklahoma , 408 u.s. 914 (1972) 408 u.s. 914 wilbert montell brown v. state of oklahoma. no. 71-6535. supreme court of the united states june 26, 1972 the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the court of criminal appeals of the state of oklahoma for reconsideration in the light of cohen v. california, 403 u.s. 15 (1971), and gooding v. wilson, 405 u.s. 518 (1972). mr. justice powell, concurring in the result. the statute involved in this case is considerably broader than the statute involved in rosenfeld v. new jersey, 408 u.s. 901 , and it has not been given a narrowing construction by the oklahoma courts. moreover, the papers filed in this case indicate that the language for which appellant was prosecuted was used in a political meeting to which appellant had been invited to present the black panther viewpoint. in these circumstances language of the character charged might well have been anticipated by the audience. these factors lead me to conclude that this case is significantly different from rosenfeld v. new jersey, supra. i therefore concur in the court's disposition of this case. mr. chief justice burger, with whom mr. justice blackmun and mr. justice rehnquist join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see . mr. justice rehnquist, with whom the chief justice and mr. justice blackmun, join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see .[ brown v. oklahoma 408 u.s. 914 (1972) ]

Full Judgment

BROWN v. OKLAHOMA - 408 U.S. 914 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court BROWN v. OKLAHOMA , 408 U.S. 914 (1972)

408 U.S. 914

Wilbert Montell BROWN
v.
State of OKLAHOMA.
No. 71-6535.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 26, 1972

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma for reconsideration in the light of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), and Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972).

Mr. Justice POWELL, concurring in the result.

The statute involved in this case is considerably broader than the statute involved in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901 , and it has not been given a narrowing construction by the Oklahoma courts. Moreover, the papers filed in this case indicate that the language for which appellant was prosecuted was used in a political meeting to which appellant had been invited to present the Black Panther viewpoint. In these circumstances language of the character charged might well have been anticipated by the audience.

These factors lead me to conclude that this case is significantly different from Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, supra. I therefore concur in the Court's disposition of this case.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see .

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN, join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see .[ Brown v. Oklahoma 408 U.S. 914 (1972) ]

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial