Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Communist Party Vs. Sacb

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 05, 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

75 entries 9 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  2. American Communications Assn. Vs. Douds US Supreme Court · May 08, 1950
  3. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  4. Wieman Vs. Updegraff US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1952
  5. Watson Vs. Buck US Supreme Court · May 26, 1941
  6. Buchanan Vs. Warley US Supreme Court · Nov 05, 1917
  7. Truax Vs. Raich US Supreme Court · Nov 01, 1915
  8. United Public Workers Vs. Mitchell US Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1947
  9. U.S. 1 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Communist Party v. SACB
    Search
  10. U.S. 1 (1961) Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive
    Search
  11. affecting their rights were prematurely raised, and will not be considered at this time. Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities
    Search
  12. do not constitute a restraint of freedom of expression and association in violation of the First Amendment. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  13. Bates v. Little
    Search
  14. of the Board enjoined. A statutory three-judge court denied preliminary relief, Communist Party of the United States v. McGrath
    Search
  15. denied the motion and affirmed the order of the Board, one judge dissenting. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive
    Search
  16. of several documents relating to Mrs. Markward's testimony, and remanded. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive
    Search
  17. to order production could not be corrected on petition to review the Board's order. Relying on Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor
    Search
  18. by the administrative agency charged with its enforcement is to be given weight by a reviewing court. Cf. Labor Board v. Hearst
    Search
  19. Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111 . Our decision in Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United
    Search
  20. defines. In this context, the Party misapplies Yates v. United
    Search
  21. States, 354 U. S. 298 , and Dennis v. United
    Search
  22. States, 341 U. S. 494 , on which it relies. See Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  23. record before it, to appraise the probative force of the evidence in each dimension. See Secretary of Agriculture v. Central
    Search
  24. We think that the Court of Appeals did not err in refusing to remand the case on that ground. Cf. Labor Board v. Newport
    Search
  25. not rely on, or even refer to, the finding of secret practices. Thus, this case is unlike Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery
    Search
  26. Corp., 318 U. S. 80 , and Labor Board v. Virginia
    Search
  27. purport to rely, it would be an unwarranted exercise of reviewing power to remand for further proceedings. Labor Board v. Reed
    Search
  28. and we find no purpose to be served in departing now from this settled policy of appellate review. Labor Board v. Pittsburgh
    Search
  29. Labor Board v. American
    Search
  30. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Standard
    Search
  31. the First Amendment rights of free expression and association of the Communist Party and its adherents. See NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  32. Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  33. if the Party fails to register or fails to list them. Cf. Blau v. United
    Search
  34. Quinn v. United
    Search
  35. are attacked as a penalty on the exercise of, the Party's constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Cf. Talley v. California
    Search
  36. are said to deny those members due process of law by, in effect, attainting them by association, cf. De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search
  37. a justiciable controversy in which the nature and extent of those rights may be litigated. United Public Workers v. Mitchell
    Search
  38. International Longshoremen's Union v. Boyd
    Search
  39. Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners
    Search
  40. Arizona v. California
    Search
  41. Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring, in Ashwander v. Tennessee
    Search
  42. can most wisely determine issues precisely defined by the confining circumstances of particular situations. See Parker v. County
    Search
  43. Rescue Army v. Municipal
    Search
  44. Massachusetts v. Mellon
    Search
  45. the Board's registration order. A closely similar issue was presented to this Court in Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities
    Search
  46. withdraw from profitable relations or associations with the litigants. See, e.g., Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
    Search
  47. Pierce v. Society
    Search
  48. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Communist Party v. SACB
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial