Citation network
United States Vs. O'Brien
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1968
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. 367 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
U.S. 367 (1968) United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
impact of his conduct for which he was convicted makes his case readily distinguishable from Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
purpose in enacting the law affords no basis for declaring an otherwise constitutional statute invalid. McCray v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 195 U. S. 27 (1904). Pp. 391 U. S. 383 -384. (b) Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936) and Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
destruction, and it does not punish only destruction engaged in for the purpose of expressing views. Compare Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. Lichter v. UnitedSearch
-
Lichter v. UnitedSearch
-
the effective protection of one and the same interest. Compare the majority and dissenting opinions in Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
Selective Service certificates than a law which prohibits their willful mutilation or destruction. Compare Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful. In Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
at suppressing communication it could not be sustained as a regulation of noncommunicative conduct. See also NLRB v. FruitSearch
-
McCray v. UnitedSearch
-
adjudication was reaffirmed and the many cases were collected by Mr. Justice Brandeis for the Court in Arizona v. CaliforniaSearch
-
it. O'Brien's position, and, to some extent, that of the court below, rest upon a misunderstanding of Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
Together with No. 233, O'Brien v. UnitedSearch
-
O'Brien v. UnitedSearch
-
for nonpossession, and that nonpossession was not a lesser included offense of mutilation or destruction. O'Brien v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MillerSearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
Bates v. LittleSearch
-
Cf. Milanovich v. UnitedSearch
-
Hein v. UnitedSearch
-
Prince v. UnitedSearch
-
Heflin v. UnitedSearch
-
has on occasion led the Court to examine the legislative motive in enacting the statute. See, e.g., United States v. LovettSearch
-
an inquiry into legislative purpose or motive of the type that O'Brien suggests we engage in in this case. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
I submit, a question upon which the litigants and the country are entitled to a ruling. I have discussed in Holmes v. UnitedSearch
-
the question. It is time that we made a ruling. This case should be put down for reargument and heard with Holmes v. UnitedSearch
-
States and with Hart v. UnitedSearch
-
Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 195 , 274 U. S. 200 ) to the need correctly to decide the case before the court. E.g., Erie R. Co. v. TompkinsSearch
-
U. S. 1 . In such a case, it is not unusual to ask for reargument ( Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
S. 379 , n. 2, Frankfurter, J., concurring) even on a constitutional question not raised by the parties. In Abel v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. 940. In Lustig v UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
and Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
Compare Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial