Citation network
Procunier Vs. Martinez
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 29, 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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 396 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Procunier v. MartinezSearch
-
U.S. 396 (1974) Procunier v. MartinezSearch
-
ban did not operate), constituted an unjustifiable restriction on the inmates' right of access to the courts. Johnson v. AverySearch
-
that a state court might declare the prison regulations unconstitutional is no ground for abstention. Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Brief for Appellants 8-9. As this Court made plain in Baggett v. BullittSearch
-
of abstention when the federal constitutional challenge concerns facial repugnance to the First Amendment. Zwickler v. KootaSearch
-
federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional Page 416 U. S. 406 rights. Johnson v. AverySearch
-
a hands-off posture in the face of constitutional challenges to censorship of prisoner mail. E.g., McCloskey v. MarylandSearch
-
Lee v. TahashSearch
-
Krupnick v. CrouseSearch
-
Sostre v. McGinnisSearch
-
F.2d 178, 199 (CA2 1971), cert. denied sub nom. Oswald v. SostreSearch
-
to justify censorship of prisoner mail. E.g., Jackson v. GodwinSearch
-
Morales v. SchmidtSearch
-
Fortune Society v. McGinnisSearch
-
E.g., Wilkinson v. SkinnerSearch
-
E.g., Carothers v. FolletteSearch
-
F.Supp. 1014, 1024 (SDNY 1970) (citations omitted). See also Gates v. CollierSearch
-
LeMon v. ZelkerSearch
-
Amendments a protection against unjustified governmental interference with the intended communication. Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
Kleindienst v. MandelSearch
-
Martin v. CitySearch
-
Amendment liberties imposed in furtherance of legitimate governmental activities. As the Court noted in Tinker v. DesSearch
-
were afforded maximum freedom of speech consistent with those requirements. The same approach was followed in Healy v. JamesSearch
-
the students had, in fact, refused to accept reasonable regulations governing student conduct. In United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
the circumstance of imprisonment. As such, it is protected from arbitrary governmental invasion. See Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
that the District Court erred in invalidating this regulation. This result is mandated by our decision in Johnson v. AverySearch
-
Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. BurlesonSearch
-
U. S. 407 , 255 U. S. 437 (1921) (dissenting opinion), quoted with approval in Blount v. RizziSearch
-
U. S. 410 , 400 U. S. 416 (1971). See also Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
Coffin v. ReichardSearch
-
even lead to reprisals. A similar pall may be cast over the free expression of the inmates' correspondents. Cf. Talley v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of governing persons in prisons are different from and greater than those in governing persons without. Barnett v. RodgersSearch
-
Rowland v. SiglerSearch
-
reasons imperatively justifying the particular deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights at issue. Cf. Healy v. JamesSearch
-
Tinker v. DesSearch
-
the Second Circuit, found two observations particularly apropos of similar claims of rehabilitative benefit in Sostre v. McGinnisSearch
-
Sostre v. McGnnisSearch
-
Cruz v. BetoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial