Citation network
Kusper Vs. Pontikes
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 19, 1973
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. 51 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Kusper v. PontikesSearch
-
U.S. 51 (1973) Kusper v. PontikesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
cannot justify the substantial restraint of the 23-month rule. Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
and thus outside the purview of the 23-month rule. As we stated in Lake Carriers' Assn. v. MacMullanSearch
-
judge-made doctrine . . first fashioned in 1941 in Railroad Commission v. PullmanSearch
-
only in narrowly limited special circumstances,' Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
England v. MedicalSearch
-
the state judiciary that would avoid or modify the necessity of reaching a federal constitutional question. Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
is foreclosed by the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in Faherty v. BoardSearch
-
protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. NAACP v. ButtonSearch
-
Bates v. LittleSearch
-
associate with the political party of one's choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom. Williams v. RhodesSearch
-
U. S. 23 , 393 U. S. 30 . Cf. United States v. RobelSearch
-
setting qualifications for voters, the States may not infringe upon basic constitutional protections. See, e.g., Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
Kramer v. UnionSearch
-
U. S. 89 . As the Court made clear in Williams v. RhodesSearch
-
party of their choice. But neither did the state attempts to compel disclosure of NAACP membership lists in Bates v. LittleSearch
-
Rock and NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
encroachment upon associational freedom cannot be justified upon a mere showing of a legitimate state interest. Bates v. LittleSearch
-
legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty. Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
it may not choose a legislative scheme that broadly stifles the exercise of fundamental personal liberties. Shelton v. TuckerSearch
-
party vote in another's primary in order to distort that primary's results. It is said that our decision in Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
It is true, as the appellants argue, that the plaintiff in Faherty v. BoardSearch
-
to federal office, however, the Court has held that Congress has power to establish voter qualifications. Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
occurs about eight months before the primary. Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
Prior case law does not require a conclusion of invalidity where, as here, the intrusion is so minor. See McDonald v. BoardSearch
-
as so imposed, was the result of an involuntary condition not directly tied to the franchise. See, for example, Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
Cipriano v. CitySearch
-
U. S. 89 (1965) (military status). Cf. Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
of the ballot box and the party system. The interest asserted by the State is clearly a legitimate one. Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
problems confronting them that are associated with the preservation of the integrity of the franchise. Cf. Phoenix v. KolodziejskiSearch
-
on Illinois voters' exercise of their right of free political association. In so doing, it distinguishes Rosario v. RockefellerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kusper v. PontikesSearch
-
Railroad Commission v. PullmanSearch
-
Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
Faherty v. BoardSearch
-
the First and Fourteenth Amendments. NAACP v. ButtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial