Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lathrop Vs. Donohue

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 19, 1961

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

69 entries 2 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Jamison Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1943
    Relied / Followed
  2. Cohen Vs. Hurley US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1961
  3. U.S. 820 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Lathrop v. Donohue
    Search
  4. U.S. 820 (1961) Lathrop v. Donohue
    Search
  5. Bar and to pay reasonable annual dues, they do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Railway Employes' Department v. Hanson
    Search
  6. King Manufacturing Co. v. City
    Search
  7. Thus, this Court has upheld jurisdiction on appeal of challenges to municipal ordinances, e.g., King Manufacturing Co. v. City
    Search
  8. certain types of orders of state regulatory commission, e.g., Lake Erie & Western R. Co. v. State
    Search
  9. and some Page 367 U. S. 825 orders of other state agencies, e.g., Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  10. to all present members of the Bar and to all persons coming within the described class in the future. Cf. Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  11. We therefore are confronted, as we were in Railway Employes' Department v. Hanson
    Search
  12. of group activities, not with involuntary membership in any other aspect. Cf. International Association of Machinists v. Street
    Search
  13. a claim of impingement upon freedom of association no different from that which we decided in Railway Employes' Dept. v. Hanson
    Search
  14. similar to the legislative activities of which the appellant complains. See International Association of Machinists v. Street
    Search
  15. more concretely presented for adjudication than it was in Hanson. Compare International Association of Machinists v. Street
    Search
  16. United States v. C.I
    Search
  17. O., 335 U. S. 106 , 335 U. S. 126 (concurring opinion). Cf. United States v. U.A
    Search
  18. S. 848 he opposes. That issue is reserved, just as it was in Hanson, see International Association of Machinists v. Street
    Search
  19. which the State, through its courts, has traditionally exercised over admission to the practice of law, see Konigsberg v. State
    Search
  20. In re Anastaplo, 366 U. S. 82 , and over the conduct of lawyers after admission, see Cohen v. Hurley
    Search
  21. assured by the Fourteenth Amendment, see NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  22. of dues could not be made the basis of limiting the profession of law to the comparatively wealthy. Cf. Griffin v. Illinois
    Search
  23. lawyers. But neither activity is the kind of direct self-regulation that was stricken down in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United
    Search
  24. Pacific States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon
    Search
  25. to a compelled affirmation of belief of the sort this Court struck down in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
    Search
  26. an organization. Mr Justice Cardozo, writing for himself, Mr. Justice Brandeis, and Mr. Justice Stone in Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  27. Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  28. impingement upon such freedoms may fairly be said to draw in question governmental action. See, e.g., Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  29. Konigsberg v. State
    Search
  30. Dulles v. Johnson
    Search
  31. me that a reasonable license tax can be imposed on the profession of being a lawyer, doctor, dentist, etc. See Royall v. Virginia
    Search
  32. Wyoming. See note 14, dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER in International Association of Machinists v. Street
    Search
  33. question involved in both of them, it is this case and the companion case of International Association of Machinists v. Street
    Search
  34. Were it not for this Court's recent decision in Cohen v. Hurley
    Search
  35. Brown v. Western
    Search
  36. relied upon by the plurality opinion certainly do not support its position. The concurring opinion in United States v. C.I
    Search
  37. issues should be thrown out of court completely for his failure. And the decision of the Court in United States v. International
    Search
  38. is set out in American Communications Ass'n v. Douds
    Search
  39. Dennis v. United
    Search
  40. Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  41. Wilkinson v. United
    Search
  42. Scales v. United
    Search
  43. Communist Party v. Subversive
    Search
  44. Braden v. United
    Search
  45. American Communications Ass'n v. Douds
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Lathrop v. Donohue
    Search
  47. the Fourteenth Amendment. Railway Employes' Department v. Hanson
    Search
  48. Lake Erie & Western R. Co. v. State
    Search
  49. Cf. Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  50. Railway Employes' Department v. Hanson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial