Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Redrup Vs. New York

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 08, 1967

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

30 entries 3 linked 27 unlinked
Show
  1. Public Utilities Comm'n Vs. Pollak US Supreme Court · May 26, 1952
  2. Memoirs Vs. Massachusetts US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1966
  3. Jacobellis Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1964
  4. Redrup v. New
    Search
  5. York - 386 U.S. 767 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Redrup v. New
    Search
  6. York, 386 U.S. 767 (1967) Redrup v. New
    Search
  7. the guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. I In No. 3, Redrup v. New
    Search
  8. He was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. In No. 16, Austin v. Kentucky
    Search
  9. In No. 50, Gent v. Arkansas
    Search
  10. there a claim that the statute in question reflected a specific and limited state concern for juveniles. See Prince v. Massachusetts
    Search
  11. Butler v. Michigan
    Search
  12. in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it. Cf. Breard v. Alexandria
    Search
  13. which the Court found significant in Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  14. in Page 386 U. S. 770 Memoirs v. Massachusetts
    Search
  15. Together with No. 16, Austin v. Kentucky
    Search
  16. certiorari to the Circuit Court of McCracken County, Kentucky, argued on October 10-11, 1966, and No. 50, Gent et al. v. Arkansas
    Search
  17. Austin v. Kentucky
    Search
  18. Gent v. Arkansas
    Search
  19. See Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  20. Roth v. United
    Search
  21. Review 7, 69-77. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE CLARK joins, dissenting. Two of these cases, Redrup v. New
    Search
  22. York and Austin v. Kentucky
    Search
  23. were taken to consider the standards governing the application of the scienter requirement announced in Smith v. California
    Search
  24. the quality of that knowledge, however, was not defined. The third case, Gent v. Arkansas
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Redrup v. New
    Search
  26. See Prince v. Massachusetts
    Search
  27. Butler v. Michigan
    Search
  28. Cf. Breard v. Alexandria
    Search
  29. Ginzburg v. United
    Search
  30. Smith v. California
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales