Citation network
California Vs. Larue
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 05, 1972
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. 109 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court California v. LaRueSearch
-
U.S. 109 (1972) California v. LaRueSearch
-
either as a prohibition of obscenity in accordance with the Roth line of decisions in this Court ( Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
communicative element in it under the standards Page 409 U. S. 114 laid down by this Court in United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in a theater, but rather in a context of licensing bars and nightclubs to sell liquor by the drink. In Seagram & Sons v. HostetterSearch
-
as conferring something more than the normal state authority over public health, welfare, and morals. In Hostetter v. IdlewildSearch
-
Still Page 409 U. S. 115 earlier, the Court stated in State Board v. Young'sSearch
-
supersedes all other provisions of the United States Constitution in the area of liquor regulations. In Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
Hostetter v. IdlewildSearch
-
the state agency that is itself the repository of the State's power under the Twenty-first Amendment. Seagram & Sons v. HostetterSearch
-
of inebriation cannot, therefore, be deemed an unreasonable one under the holdings of our prior cases. Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
that would not be found obscene under Roth and subsequent decisions of this Court. See, e.g., Sunshine Book Co. v. SummerfieldSearch
-
are within the protection of Page 409 U. S. 117 the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSearch
-
Id. at 343 U. S. 502 -503. In Schacht v. UnitedSearch
-
Hughes v. SuperiorSearch
-
Giboney v. EmpireSearch
-
and of Art. III. California Comm'n v. UnitedSearch
-
for declaratory judgments to invalidate statutes on their face is an issue not properly before us. Cf. Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
have permitted attacks on First Amendment grounds similar to those advanced by the appellees, see, e.g., Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
Keyishian v. BoardSearch
-
in which the First Amendment freedoms are exercised, by forbidding sound trucks in residential neighborhoods, Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
a nondiscriminatory requirement that those who would parade on a public thoroughfare first obtain a permit. Cox v. NewSearch
-
of the exercise of First Amendment rights have been sustained. See, e.g., Cameron v. JohnsonSearch
-
U. S. 611 (1968), and Cox v. LouisianaSearch
-
on their face, and have found them to be valid. The admonition contained in the Court's opinion in Seagram & Sons v. HostetterSearch
-
to specify the times, places, and circumstances where liquor may be dispensed within its borders. Seagram & Sons v. HostetterSearch
-
Dept. of Revenue v. JamesSearch
-
California v. WashingtonSearch
-
Mahoney v. JosephSearch
-
State Board v. Young'sSearch
-
Amendment necessarily overrides in its allotted area any other relevant provision of the Constitution. See Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution, and therefore complies with Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. HaworthSearch
-
is performed in a beer garden. Chief Justice Hughes stated the controlling principle in Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SECSearch
-
The same thought was expressed by Chief Justice Stone in Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
questions of state law or procedure which bear on federal constitutional questions, we dismiss the appeal. Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
Amendment, and also, no doubt, to some speech and conduct which are unprotected under our prior decisions. See Memoirs v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
by the First Amendment, the State has imposed an unconstitutional condition on the grant of a license. See Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
so viewed, I think it clear that the regulations are overbroad, and therefore unconstitutional. See, e.g., Dombrowski v. PfisterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial