Citation network
Wood Vs. Georgia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 1962
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 375 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. 375 (1962) Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
three were affirmed and the conviction on count two, based on the open letter to the grand jury, was reversed. Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
to define the limitations upon the contempt power according to the terms of the Federal Constitution. In Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Subsequently, in Pennekamp v. FloridaSearch
-
to consider the application of the clear and present danger principle to a case of the type under review was in Craig v. HarneySearch
-
to define the limits of state power regarding freedom of speech and expression rests with this Court, Pennekamp v. FloridaSearch
-
Chambers v. FloridaSearch
-
not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly. Cf. Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
by ill-considered misconduct aimed at influencing the outcome of a trial or a grand jury proceeding. Compare Smith v. TexasSearch
-
and Moore v. DempseySearch
-
Page 370 U. S. 393 Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
serious degree of harm to the administration of law necessary to justify exercise of the contempt power. Compare Craig v. HarneySearch
-
De Jonge v. OregonSearch
-
Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
were to be accommodated by applying the common law of England at the time the Constitution was adopted. Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
determine the full power of the State to protect the administration of justice by use of the contempt power. See Craig v. HarneySearch
-
Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., v. StateSearch
-
McGill v. StateSearch
-
Bradley v. StateSearch
-
Ga. 168, 36 S.E. 630. But see Townsend v. StateSearch
-
Compare the legislative determination made by the State of California discussed briefly in Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 587 , 294 U. S. 590 . See Hooven & Allison Co. v. EvattSearch
-
s discussion of these findings and of the conclusion drawn by the Texas court on the basis of those findings, Craig v. HarneySearch
-
Toledo Newspaper Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Compare Toledo Newspaper Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Lovell v. CitySearch
-
Orfield, Criminal Procedure from Arrest to Appeal (1947) 144-146. See Hale v. HenkelSearch
-
Compare Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting in Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
York, 268 U. S. 652 , 268 U. S. 673 . See also Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
Petitioner was not a civil servant, but an elected official, and hence this is not a case like United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE CLARK joins, dissenting. Whether or not the clear and present danger doctrine of Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
influenced by extrajudicial statements of the case cannot stand consistently with due process of law. E.g., Irvin v. DowdSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial