Citation network
Arcara Vs. Cloud Books, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jul 07, 1986
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
-
Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
Books, Inc. - 478 U.S. 697 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986) Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed on First Amendment grounds. Applying the test of United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of the closure statute against respondents' bookstore. United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed. People ex rel. Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of prostitution and the First Amendment issue. The New York Court of Appeals reversed. People ex rel. Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
upon previous distribution of obscene materials to an unconstitutional prior restraint. E.g., Gayety Theatres, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
General Corp. v. StateSearch
-
Busch v. ProjectionSearch
-
Room Theater, 17 Cal.3d 42, 550 P.2d 600, cert. denied sub nom. Van de Kamp v. ProjectionSearch
-
nonspeech activity but having an incidental effect on speech. Purporting to apply the four-part test of United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
conduct which has the incidental effect of burdening the expression of a particular political opinion. United States v. O'BrienSearch
-
O'Brien to other cases involving governmental regulation of conduct that has an expressive element. In Clark v. CommunitySearch
-
who sought to sleep overnight in these parks as a protest of the plight of homeless people. Again in United States v. AlbertiniSearch
-
disproportionate burden upon those engaged in protected First Amendment activities. In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
generally applicable economic regulations without creating constitutional problems. See, e.g., Citizen Publishing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Lorain Journal Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Mabee v. WhiteSearch
-
Associated Press v. UnitedSearch
-
Associated Press v. NLRBSearch
-
Branzburg v. HayesSearch
-
activity carried on in this case manifests absolutely no element of protected expression. In Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSearch
-
causes, yet no one would suggest that such liability gives rise to a valid First Amendment claim. Cf. Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
rejected a prisoner's claim to a prison environment least restrictive of his desire to speak to outsiders. See Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
Jones v. NorthSearch
-
under public health nuisance statutes based upon illicit sexual activities occurring on the premises. Commonwealth v. CroatanSearch
-
Lewis v. AllouwillSearch
-
Appeals' reasoning analogizing the closure order sought in this case to an unconstitutional prior restraint under Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
which drew sanctions was intimately related to expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. See Grayned v. CitySearch
-
motivation or policy on the part of the District Attorney, they might have a claim of selective prosecution. See Wayte v. UnitedSearch
-
Inc., has a bookstore that sells sexually explicit, but not allegedly obscene, publications. See People ex rel. Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
Despite the obvious role that commercial bookstores play in facilitating free expression, see, e.g., Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 , 283 U. S. 708 (1931). See also Schad v. MountSearch
-
nonspeech repeatedly have been struck down if they unduly penalize speech, political or otherwise. See, e.g., Marsh v. AlabamaSearch
-
supra, (littering). Cf. Grayned v. CitySearch
-
in Marsh, Cantwell, and Schneider, as in this case, did not attempt to censor particular speech, cf. Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
ex rel. Olson, supra, or to burden disproportionately a particular speaker, cf. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
balanced the State's interests against the burden imposed on the exercise of the fundamental right. Cf. Young v. AmericanSearch
-
Renton v. PlaytimeSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Arcara v. CloudSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial