Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Spence Vs. Washington

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 1974

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

47 entries 4 linked 43 unlinked
Show
  1. Healy Vs. James US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1972
  2. Smith Vs. Goguen US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1974
  3. Halter Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1907
  4. Valentine Vs. Chrestensen US Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1942
  5. U.S. 405 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Spence v. Washington
    Search
  6. U.S. 405 (1974) Spence v. Washington
    Search
  7. communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, for as the Court noted in United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  8. The Court for decades has recognized the communicative connotations of the use of flags. E.g., Stromberg v. California
    Search
  9. Board of Education v. Barnette
    Search
  10. a symbol is used for purposes of expression is important, for the context may give meaning to the symbol. See Tinker v. Des
    Search
  11. triggered by the Cambodian incursion and the Kent State tragedy, also issues of great public moment. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  12. over which the State by necessity must have certain supervisory powers unrelated to expression. Cf. Procunier v. Martinez
    Search
  13. Tinker v. Des
    Search
  14. the challenged conviction, drawing upon the arguments before us, the opinions below, and the Court's opinion in Street v. New
    Search
  15. Street v. New
    Search
  16. ideas upon a captive audience. Anyone who might have been offended could easily have avoided the display. See Cohen v. California
    Search
  17. U. S. 15 (1971). Nor may appellant be punished for failing to show proper respect for our national emblem. Street v. New
    Search
  18. Id. at 799, 800, 506 P.2d at 300, 301. As the Court noted in, e.g., Schneider v. State
    Search
  19. is no occasion in this case to address the application of the challenged statute to commercial behavior. Cf. Halter v. Nebraska
    Search
  20. the Court concluded that the First Amendment applies to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Gitlow v. New
    Search
  21. unrelated to expression has been advanced or can be supported on this record, the four-step analysis of United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  22. has been a result of prosecutorial discretion, not the language of the statute. Accordingly, this case is unlike Smith v. Goguen
    Search
  23. The similarity of our holding to that of the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Kool
    Search
  24. I would reverse the judgment for substantially the same reasons given by the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Kool
    Search
  25. Chaplinski v. New
    Search
  26. First Amendment, despite the fact that they could reasonably be thought protected under its literal language. See Roth v. United
    Search
  27. was convicted is no stranger to this Court, a virtually identical statute having been before the Court in Halter v. Nebraska
    Search
  28. than other forms of expression, but that suggestion would seem quite inconsistent with the position taken in Lehman v. Shaker
    Search
  29. this interest has been emphasized in recent as well as distant times. Mr. Justice Fortas, for example, noted in Street v. New
    Search
  30. it. It certainly could not require all citizens to own the flag or compel citizens to salute one. Board of Education v. Barnette
    Search
  31. There is some doubt concerning whether the 'commercial speech' distinction announced in Valentine v. Chrestensen
    Search
  32. referring to MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' concurring opinion in Cammarano v. United
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court Spence v. Washington
    Search
  34. E.g., Stromberg v. California
    Search
  35. See Tinker v. Des
    Search
  36. Cf. Scheuer v. Rhodes
    Search
  37. Cf. Procunier v. Martinez
    Search
  38. See Cohen v. California
    Search
  39. Schneider v. State
    Search
  40. Cf. Halter v. Nebraska
    Search
  41. of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Gitlow v. New
    Search
  42. of United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  43. State v. Kool
    Search
  44. See Roth v. United
    Search
  45. Lehman v. Shaker
    Search
  46. Cammarano v. United
    Search
  47. United States v. O'Brien
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial