Citation network
Kelley Vs. Johnson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 05, 1976
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
- Distinguished
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 238 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Kelley v. JohnsonSearch
-
U.S. 238 (1976) Kelley v. JohnsonSearch
-
Dwen v. BarrySearch
-
likewise protects substantive aspects of liberty against unconstitutional restrictions by the State. Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
interest claimed by respondent here, of course, is distinguishable from the interests protected by the Court in Roe v. WadeSearch
-
and Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
to this distinction, it was thereafter apparently ignored. We think, however, it is highly significant. In Pickering v. BoardSearch
-
restrictions upon activities of both federal and state employees lying at the core of the First Amendment. CSC v. LetterSearch
-
choices designed to promote other aims within the cognizance of the State's police power. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. MissouriSearch
-
s method of organizing its police force, and the promotion of safety of persons and property. United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
interest in freedom to choose his own hairstyle. Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
s claim based on the liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals relied on Garrity v. NewSearch
-
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. HoganSearch
-
E.g., Stradley v. AndersenSearch
-
Greenwald v. FrankSearch
-
the discretionary power of the military and National Guard to regulate a soldier's hair length. See Gianatasio v. WhyteSearch
-
Raderman v. KaineSearch
-
with respect to a liberty interest within the Fourteenth Amendment as to matters of personal appearance. See Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
U. S. 497 , 347 U. S. 499 (1954). See also Poe v. UllmanSearch
-
identity, autonomy and personal integrity that I have always assumed the Constitution was designed to protect. See Roe v. WadeSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
Union Pacific R. Co. v. BotsfordSearch
-
Constitution's protection of liberty encompasses the interest of parents in having their children learn German, Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
the interest of parents in being able to send their children to private as well as public schools, Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
the interest of citizens in traveling abroad, Kent v. DullesSearch
-
Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
the interest of a woman in deciding whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, Roe v. WadeSearch
-
and the interest of a student in the damage to his reputation caused by a 10-day suspension from school. Goss v. LopezSearch
-
not only deprive him of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment, but violate his First Amendment rights as well. Tinker v. DesSearch
-
found the rationales offered for such regulations to be sufficient to support their constitutionality. See, e.g., King v. SaddlebackSearch
-
Gell v. RickelmanSearch
-
Ferrell v. DallasSearch
-
cert. denied, 393 U.S. 856 (1968). Other cases have found similar regulations unconstitutional. See, e.g., Richards v. ThurstonSearch
-
Breen v. KahlSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial