Citation network
Cox Vs. Louisiana
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 18, 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. 559 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
U.S. 559 (1965) Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
they told him was available would be to allow a type of entrapment violative of the Due Process Clause. Raley v. OhioSearch
-
considered, is a precise, narrowly drawn regulatory statute which proscribes certain specific behavior. Cf. Edwards v. SouthSearch
-
and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy. See Wood v. GeorgiaSearch
-
mob law is the very antithesis of due process. See Frank v. MangumSearch
-
Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 47 , 249 U. S. 52 . A man may be punished for encouraging the commission of a crime, Fox v. WashingtonSearch
-
Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 568 . This principle has been applied to picketing and parading in labor disputes. See Hughes v. SuperiorSearch
-
Giboney v. EmpireSearch
-
Building Service Employees v. GazzamSearch
-
U. S. 532 . But cf. Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
Storage & Ice Co., supra, at 336 U. S. 502 . Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 252 , and Pennekamp v. FloridaSearch
-
punish specific conduct that infringes a substantial state interest in protecting the judicial process. See Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
mindful of the essential importance to our society of a vigilant protection of freedom of speech and press. Bridges v. CaliforniaSearch
-
consistently with our Constitution abridge those freedoms to obviate slight inconveniences or annoyances. Schneider v. StateSearch
-
was no evidence of intent to obstruct justice or influence any judicial official, as required by the statute. Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
rule enunciated in Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
and not its obstruction, is as irrelevant as would be the motives of the mob condemned by Justice Holmes in Frank v. MangumSearch
-
of the demonstrators are good or bad. While this case contains direct evidence taking it out of the Thompson v. LouisvilleSearch
-
of those charged may be presumed to intend to influence judges, jurors, witnesses or court officials. Cf. Screws v. UnitedSearch
-
renders it unconstitutionally vague. See Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
officials in making determinations concerning the time, place, duration, and manner of demonstrations. See Cox v. NewSearch
-
Poulos v. NewSearch
-
the courthouse within the terms of the statute. In Raley v. OhioSearch
-
Gibson v. FloridaSearch
-
Cf. United States v. NationalSearch
-
Note, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67. Cf. Cole v. ArkansasSearch
-
People v. FergusonSearch
-
Page 379 U. S. 577 as to be unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Winters v. NewSearch
-
s interest in engaging in conduct closely involving his First Amendment freedoms. As this Court held in Schneider v. StateSearch
-
Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. VirginiaSearch
-
Martin v. CitySearch
-
Lovell v. CitySearch
-
Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 . As I discussed at length in my dissenting opinion in Barenblatt v. UnitedSearch
-
conduct of picketing or patrolling, whether on publicly owned streets or on privately owned property. See Labor Board v. FruitSearch
-
utilized to communicate ideas, is not speech, and therefore is not of itself protected by the First Amendment. Hughes v. SuperiorSearch
-
Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers v. WohlSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
of the Due Process Clause. Raley v. OhioSearch
-
Cf. Edwards v. SouthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial