Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Massachusetts Vs. Oakes

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 21, 1989

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

55 entries 6 linked 49 unlinked
Show
  1. Broadrick Vs. Oklahoma US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1973
  2. Dombrowski Vs. Pfister US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
    Relied / Followed
  3. Aikens Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1972
  4. Ditson Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
    Relied / Followed
  5. Bigelow Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  6. New York Vs. Ferber US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1982
  7. U.S. 576 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Massachusetts v. Oakes
    Search
  8. U.S. 576 (1989) Massachusetts v. Oakes
    Search
  9. of the statute moots the overbreadth question in this case. Thus, overbreadth analysis is inappropriate under Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  10. overbroad. The scope of this statute has already been validated except as to nonpornographic depictions, New York v. Ferber
    Search
  11. the statute on the ground that it may be unconstitutionally applied to others. Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews
    Search
  12. Brockett v. Spokane
    Search
  13. is constitutionally protected to refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions. Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  14. Page 491 U. S. 582 We have addressed overbreadth only where its effect might be salutary. In Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  15. Brief for Appellee in Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  16. statute, we need not extend the benefits of the doctrine to a defendant whose conduct is not protected. See Pope v. Illinois
    Search
  17. Cf. Upper Midwest Booksellers Assn. v. Minneapolis
    Search
  18. U. S. 479 , 380 U. S. 491 , n. 7 (1965) (citations omitted). See also Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  19. part of the dispute remains alive, is to vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings. See DeFunis v. Odegaard
    Search
  20. the particular claim before us became moot, thereby making a remand unnecessary. See Attorney General of New Jersey v. First
    Search
  21. Michigan v. Shabaz
    Search
  22. Tiverton Board of License Comm'rs v. Pastore
    Search
  23. is being punished, thus protecting the right to engage in conduct not directly before the court. See Brockett v. Spokane
    Search
  24. U. S. 601 , 413 U. S. 615 (1973). We held in New York v. Ferber
    Search
  25. that substantial overbreadth exists. New York State Club Assn. v. New
    Search
  26. are plainly expressive activities that ordinarily qualify for First Amendment protection. See, e.g., Miller v. California
    Search
  27. and by virtue of its close association with those activities, enjoys like shelter under the First Amendment. Cf. Schad v. Mount
    Search
  28. their genitals cannot, of course, claim protected status, even though those depictions are not obscene. See New York v. Ferber
    Search
  29. Id. at 458 U. S. 765 , n. 18, citing Erznoznik v. City
    Search
  30. Ferber, supra, at 458 U. S. 757 . See also Ginsberg v. New
    Search
  31. Virginia v. American
    Search
  32. Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 615 . See also e.g., Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews
    Search
  33. Houston v. Hill
    Search
  34. topple a statute merely because we can conceive of a few impermissible applications. See City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  35. find constitutionally tolerable, particularly when the penalty is severe, Page 491 U. S. 596 See also Houston v. Hill
    Search
  36. cannot stand as it was written at the time respondent photographed his stepdaughter. In Houston v. Hill
    Search
  37. the work of artists and filmmakers and nudist family snapshots, allows one to say, as the Court said in Houston v. Hill
    Search
  38. is the likelihood that such violations will in fact be prosecuted -- I would reach the same conclusion. In Erznoznik v. City
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Massachusetts v. Oakes
    Search
  40. Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. Jews
    Search
  41. Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  42. In Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  43. See Pope v. Illinois
    Search
  44. See DeFunis v. Odegaard
    Search
  45. See Attorney General of New Jersey v. First
    Search
  46. See Brockett v. Spokane
    Search
  47. New York State Club Assn. v. New
    Search
  48. Miller v. California
    Search
  49. the First Amendment. Cf. Schad v. Mount
    Search
  50. See New York v. Ferber
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial