Citation network
Drews Vs. Maryland
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1965
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
-
U.S. 421 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Drews v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 421 (1965) Drews v. MarylandSearch
-
this Court vacated the judgments and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of Griffin v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 130 , and Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
conduct is protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, and that, under our decision in Hamm v. CitySearch
-
of Rock Hill and Lupper v. ArkansasSearch
-
U. S. 306 , the passage of the Act must be deemed to have abated the convictions. I . In Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Ibid. Thompson was followed in Garner v. LouisianaSearch
-
And in Barr v. CitySearch
-
Md. at 355, 204 A.2d at 68. Nor did they argue with the police, cf. Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
supra, or use profanity, cf. Sharpe v. StateSearch
-
can be said to have given petitioners fair warning, cf. Bouie v. CitySearch
-
II In Hamm v. CitySearch
-
that elemental principle of human conduct, and demands, on pain of criminal penalty, the patience of Job. In Blow v. NorthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a license after being forbidden to do so. We held that the Civil Rights Act abated their convictions. In McKinnie v. TennesseeSearch
-
to block traffic, or bar access to a man's home or place of business. I fully concur in the Court's observation in Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
is relatively small stand in the way of reviewing a case presenting important constitutional questions. E.g., Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Compare Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
be that the guard who asked petitioners to leave the park enjoyed the same status as the officer involved in Griffin v. MarylandSearch
-
had from Montgomery County . . . then, under Griffin v. MarylandSearch
-
Wright v. GeorgiaSearch
-
can be made that, under Maryland law, resisting an unlawful arrest does not constitute disorderly conduct. See Sharpe v. StateSearch
-
With the conduct of petitioners herein, compare that of the defendants in Sharpe v. StateSearch
-
supra, note 6 and In re Cromwell, 232 Md. 409, 194 A.2d 88. Also compare Niemotko v. StateSearch
-
Md. 247, 250, 71 A.2d 9, 10, with Niemotko v. MarylandSearch
-
De Jonge v. OregonSearch
-
U. S. 353 , 299 U. S. 362 . See also Garner v. LouisianaSearch
-
Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
the Act. I further assume that the fact that three of the petitioners are white is not the decisive factor, cf. Walker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Drews v. MarylandSearch
-
of Griffin v. MarylandSearch
-
and Bell v. MarylandSearch
-
Hamm v. CitySearch
-
In Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Garner v. LouisianaSearch
-
Barr v. CitySearch
-
Sharpe v. StateSearch
-
Bouie v. CitySearch
-
of Job. In Blow v. NorthSearch
-
In McKinnie v. TennesseeSearch
-
E.g., Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
See Sharpe v. StateSearch
-
Niemotko v. StateSearch
-
Niemotko v. MarylandSearch
-
Walker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Cole v. ArkansasSearch
-
Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
Griffin v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial