Citation network
Greer Vs. Spock
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 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
-
U.S. 828 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Greer v. SpockSearch
-
U.S. 828 (1976) Greer v. SpockSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
had no generalized constitutional right to make political speeches or distribute leaflets at Fort Dix. Flower v. UnitedSearch
-
violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction, Spock v. DavidSearch
-
directed that preliminary injunctive relief be granted to the respondents Spock, Hobson, Jenness, and Pulley. Spock v. DavidSearch
-
and the Court of Appeals affirmed this final judgment. Spock v. DavidSearch
-
speeches or distributing leaflets, the Court of Appeals relied primarily on this Court's per curiam opinion in Flower v. UnitedSearch
-
s open streets, sidewalks, and parks for the reasons stated in the familiar words of Mr. Justice Roberts in Hague v. CIOSearch
-
Niemotko v. MarylandSearch
-
Saia v. NewSearch
-
Adderley v. FloridaSearch
-
Id. at 385 U. S. 47 . See also Cox v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 837 Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 , 379 U. S. 560 -564. Cf. Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
not raise any question of unconstitutional application of the regulation to any specific situation. Cf. Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
For illustrative recent decisions of this Court see, e.g., Schlesinger v. CouncilmanSearch
-
Bell v. UnitedSearch
-
Gusic v. SchilderSearch
-
Cf. Jenness v. ForbesSearch
-
circumscribed when necessary to further a sufficiently strong public Page 424 U. S. 843 interest. See Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
any significant restriction of First Amendment freedoms carries a heavy burden of justification. See, e.g., Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
Grayned v. CitySearch
-
S. 116 -117 (1972). An approach analogous to that which must be employed in this case was described in Grayned v. CitySearch
-
U.S. at 408 U. S. 116 . See also Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
Tinker v. DesSearch
-
on the Court's identification of these interests. This case bears some similarity to that before the Court in CSC v. LetterSearch
-
U. S. 738 , 420 U. S. 757 (1975). We have said, in Parker v. LevySearch
-
I agree with the Court that the holding today is not inconsistent with our decision in Flower v. UnitedSearch
-
to which the civilian public had been permitted virtually unrestricted access. Despite that decision in Flower v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 407 U. S. 198 , quoting United States v. FlowerSearch
-
Spock v. DavidSearch
-
of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise,' United States ex rel. Toth v. QuarlesSearch
-
See New York Times Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
must be circumscribed in order to secure those interests. This principle was reaffirmed as recently as Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Greer v. SpockSearch
-
Fort Dix. Flower v. UnitedSearch
-
Spock, Hobson, Jenness, and Pulley. Spock v. DavidSearch
-
Flower v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial