Gelling Vs. Texas

Gelling vs Texas

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jun-02-1952

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/98672

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/98672
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jun-02-1952
Case Number: 343 U.S. 960
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gelling

Respondent

Texas

Excerpt

.....for exhibiting a picture after being denied a license by the local board of censors, and the conviction was affirmed by the court of criminal appeals of texas. the ordinance authorizes a local board of censors to deny a license for the showing of a motion picture, which the board is "of the opinion" is "of such character as to be prejudicial to the best interests of the people of said city," and makes the showing of a picture without a license a misdemeanor. this ordinance offends the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment on the score of indefiniteness. see my concurring opinion in burstyn v. wilson, 343 u. s. 495 , and winters v. new york, 333 u. s. 507 . mr. justice douglas, concurring. the appellant was convicted under an ordinance of the city of marshall, texas, for exhibiting a picture after being denied permission to do so by the local board of censors. the conviction was affirmed by the court of criminal appeals of texas. the ordinance authorizes a local board of censors to deny permission for the showing of a motion picture which, in the opinion of the board, is "of such character as to be prejudicial to the best interests of the people of said city," and it makes page 343 u. s. 961 the showing of a picture after refusal of permission a misdemeanor. the evil of prior restraint, condemned by near v. minnesota, 283 u. s. 697 , in the case of newspapers and by burstyn v. wilson, 343 u. s. 495 , in the case of motion pictures, is present here in flagrant form. if a board of censors can tell the american people what it is in their best interests to see or to read or to hear ( cf. public utilities comm'n v. pollak, 343 u. s. 451 ), then thought is regimented, authority substituted for liberty, and the great purpose of the first amendment to keep uncontrolled the freedom of expression defeated.

Full Judgment

Gelling v. Texas - 343 U.S. 960 (1952)
U.S. Supreme Court Gelling v. Texas, 343 U.S. 960 (1952)

Gelling v. Texas

No. 707.

Decided June 2, 1952

Concurring Opinion of Justice Jackson June 9, 1952

343 U.S. 960

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. See Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 , and Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507 .

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring in the judgment of reversal:

The appellant here was convicted under an ordinance of the city of Marshall, Texas, for exhibiting a picture after being denied a license by the local Board of Censors, and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The ordinance authorizes a local Board of Censors to deny a license for the showing of a motion picture, which the Board is "of the opinion" is "of such character as to be prejudicial to the best interests of the people of said City," and makes the showing of a picture without a license a misdemeanor. This ordinance offends the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the score of indefiniteness. See my concurring opinion in Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 , and Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507 .

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.

The appellant was convicted under an ordinance of the city of Marshall, Texas, for exhibiting a picture after being denied permission to do so by the local Board of Censors. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The ordinance authorizes a local Board of Censors to deny permission for the showing of a motion picture which, in the opinion of the Board, is "of such character as to be prejudicial to the best interests of the people of said City," and it makes

Page 343 U. S. 961

the showing of a picture after refusal of permission a misdemeanor.

The evil of prior restraint, condemned by Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 , in the case of newspapers and by Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 , in the case of motion pictures, is present here in flagrant form. If a board of censors can tell the American people what it is in their best interests to see or to read or to hear ( cf. Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451 ), then thought is regimented, authority substituted for liberty, and the great purpose of the First Amendment to keep uncontrolled the freedom of expression defeated.

Same Parties Gelling vs Texas Same Subject Land Acquisition