Citation network
Dyson Vs. Stein
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 1971
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. 200 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Dyson v. SteinSearch
-
U.S. 200 (1971) Dyson v. SteinSearch
-
to appellee, and hence no proper basis for federal interference with the pending state criminal prosecution. Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
either by injunction or by declaratory judgment, is proper only where irreparable injury is threatened. Douglas v. CitySearch
-
the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
ante, p. 401 U. S. 37 , and Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
ante, p. 401 U. S. 66 . See also Boyle v. LandrySearch
-
newspaper without a prior judicial determination of the alleged obscenity of the issues was unconstitutional. Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
the newspaper -- insofar as it disabled appellee from publishing future issues -- infringed the principle of Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
the judgment of the District Court, except for paragraph 4, for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Perez v. LedesmaSearch
-
It would be difficult to find in our books a more lawless search-and-destroy raid, unless it be the one in Kremen v. UnitedSearch
-
obscenity, for irresponsible reporting or editorials, or otherwise -- is taboo. As Chief Justice Hughes said in Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
can go into a federal court to enjoin state officials from enforcing the law, as I made clear in my dissent in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
state officials or the threat of multiple prosecutions. As Mr. Justice Butler, writing for the Court, said in Terrace v. ThompsonSearch
-
Watson v. BuckSearch
-
The Texas obscenity statute, as I view it, meets precisely the hypothetical statute we discussed in Watson v. BuckSearch
-
See Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
-
U. S. 479 , 380 U. S. 484 n. 2, and my dissent in Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
ante at 401 U. S. 65 . Appellee also asked for declaratory relief. If Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
were added to the criminal standard, as it was in Jacobellis v. OhioSearch
-
or under the standard approved by the Court. Where constitutional rights may be infringed, Winters v. NewSearch
-
Id. at 333 U. S. 515 -516. And see Wright v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Williams v. UnitedSearch
-
the Federal Government, was, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, made applicable to the States in 1931 in Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 306 U. S. 451 , 306 U. S. 453 . Chief Justice Marshall said in United States v. WiltbergerSearch
-
the legislature may have desired to include a species of activity within an Act is not enough. And see United States v. LacherSearch
-
Pierce v. UnitedSearch
-
See MR. JUSTICE BLACK's opinion in Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
U. S. 684 , 360 U. S. 690 (concurring). See my opinions in Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
See MR. JUSTICE BLACK's separate opinion in A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Dyson v. SteinSearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
-
of Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
and Samuels v. MackellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial