Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bantam Books, Inc. Vs. Sullivan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 03, 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

66 entries 6 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  2. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  3. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  4. Niemotko Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1951
  5. Truax Vs. Raich US Supreme Court · Nov 01, 1915
  6. Terrace Vs. Thompson US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1923
  7. U.S. 58 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search
  8. U.S. 58 (1963) Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search
  9. Page 372 U. S. 65 We held in Alberts v. California
    Search
  10. decided with Roth v. United
    Search
  11. Marcus v. Search
    Search
  12. Our insistence that regulations of obscenity scrupulously embody the most rigorous procedural safeguards, Smith v. California
    Search
  13. the larger principle that the freedoms of expression must be ringed about with adequate bulwarks. See, e.g., Thornhill v. Alabama
    Search
  14. Winters v. New
    Search
  15. of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 . Cf. Terry v. Adams
    Search
  16. Cf. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
    Search
  17. restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. See Near v. Minnesota
    Search
  18. Lovell v. City
    Search
  19. Schneider v. New
    Search
  20. Kunz v. New
    Search
  21. Staub v. City
    Search
  22. Kingsley Page 372 U. S. 71 Books, Inc. v. Brown
    Search
  23. adult readers are equally deprived of the opportunity to purchase the publications in the State. Cf. Butler v. Michigan
    Search
  24. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant
    Search
  25. federal law, and at the same time their injury has been a legal injury. See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
    Search
  26. a claim, plainly justiciable, of unlawful interference in advantageous business relations. American Mercury, Inc., v. Chase
    Search
  27. Pocket Books, Inc. v. Walsh
    Search
  28. standing is concerned, that the allegedly unlawful interference here is the product of state action. See Pierce v. Society
    Search
  29. Columbia Broadcasting System v. United
    Search
  30. guarantee of freedom of the press embraces the circulation of books, as well as their publication, Lovell v. City
    Search
  31. it. Unless he is permitted to sue, infringements of freedom of the press may too often go unremedied. Cf. NAACP v. State
    Search
  32. of chiefs of police or prosecutors, have been enjoined in a number of cases. See Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Blanc
    Search
  33. Bunis v. Conway
    Search
  34. Sunshine Book Co. v. McCaffrey
    Search
  35. Random House, Inc., v. Detroit
    Search
  36. HMH Publishing Co. v. Garrett
    Search
  37. New American Library of World Literature v. Allen
    Search
  38. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Melko
    Search
  39. Dearborn Publishing Co. v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  40. Epoch Producing Corp. v. Davis
    Search
  41. Roper v. Winner
    Search
  42. American Mercury, Inc. v. Chase
    Search
  43. Pocket Books, Inc. v. Walsh
    Search
  44. Dell Publishing Co. v. Beggans
    Search
  45. N.J.Eq. 72, 158 A. 765 (Chancery 1932). See also Magtab Publishing Corp. v. Howard
    Search
  46. of informal censorship here constitutes state action is in no way inconsistent with Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell
    Search
  47. Nothing in the Court's opinion in Times Film Corp. v. Chicago
    Search
  48. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring. While I join the opinion of the Court, I adhere to the views I expressed in Roth v. United
    Search
  49. But, after all this expostulation, the Court, being unable to strike down Rhode Island's statute, see Alberts v. California
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial