Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sec'y of State of Md. Vs. Munson Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 26, 1984

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

71 entries 11 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Warth Vs. Seldin US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975
  2. United States Vs. Raines US Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1960
  3. Broadrick Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  4. Parker Vs. Levy US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1974
    Relied / Followed
  5. Singleton Vs. Wulff US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1976
  6. Eisenstadt Vs. Baird US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1972
  7. Schneider Vs. State US Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1939
  8. Tileston Vs. Ullman US Supreme Court · Feb 01, 1943
  9. Craig Vs. Boren US Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1976
  10. Dombrowski Vs. Pfister US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  11. New York Vs. Ferber US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1982
  12. Sec'y of State of Md. v. Munson
    Search
  13. Co. - 467 U.S. 947 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Sec'y of State of Md. v. Munson
    Search
  14. Co., 467 U.S. 947 (1984) Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph
    Search
  15. solicitation being an unconstitutional limitation on protected First Amendment solicitation activity. Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  16. post, p. 467 U. S. 975 . JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. In Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  17. requirement of Art. III of the United States Constitution. Singleton v. Wulff
    Search
  18. has Page 467 U. S. 955 suffered both threatened and actual injury as a result of the statute. See Singleton v. Wulff
    Search
  19. Simon v. Eastern
    Search
  20. Linda R. S. v. Richard
    Search
  21. U. S. 490 , 422 U. S. 499 (1975) (citing Tileston v. Ullman
    Search
  22. and Barrows v. Jackson
    Search
  23. See Baker v. Carr
    Search
  24. be expected properly to frame the issues and present them with the necessary adversarial zeal. See, e.g., Craig v. Boren
    Search
  25. U.S. at 413 U. S. 612 , quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister
    Search
  26. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  27. to allege that, as applied to others, the statute might be unconstitutional. See Parker v. Levy
    Search
  28. We therefore move on to the merits of Munson's First Amendment claim. III The Merits. In Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  29. distinguished a case in which a percentage limitation on solicitation costs had been upheld, see National Foundation v. Fort
    Search
  30. U.S. at 444 U. S. 635 , quoting from Page 467 U. S. 964 Citizens for a Better Environment v. Schaumburg
    Search
  31. statute . . . covers a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable . . . conduct. . . .' CSC v. Letter
    Search
  32. U.S. at 417 U. S. 760 . See also New York v. Ferber
    Search
  33. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  34. U. S. 765 , 435 U. S. 786 (1978). See also Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public
    Search
  35. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  36. citing Erznoznik v. City
    Search
  37. if it cannot satisfy the percentage limitation, the chill on the protected activity is the same. See Chaplinsky v. New
    Search
  38. requirement is jurisdictional here, we must satisfy ourselves that the requirements of Art. III are met. Doremus v. Board
    Search
  39. an abstract, generalized grievance that the courts are neither well equipped nor well advised to adjudicate. See Warth v. Seldin
    Search
  40. Schlesinger v. Reservists
    Search
  41. Munson is paid to disseminate information does not, in itself, render its activity unprotected. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  42. Bates v. State
    Search
  43. because application of those rules would have an intolerable, inhibitory effect on freedom of speech. E.g., Thornhill v. Alabama
    Search
  44. U. S. 88 , 310 U. S. 97 -98 (1940). See United States v. Raines
    Search
  45. organization so that a member of the public could make an informed decision about whether to contribute. Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  46. license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that, by its very existence, chills free speech. See Thornhill v. Alabama
    Search
  47. Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  48. for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789 , 466 U. S. 797 (1984). See, e.g., Stromberg v. California
    Search
  49. U. S. 444 (1938). See also New York v. Ferber
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Sec'y of State of Md. v. Munson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial