Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Morse Vs. Frederick

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 2007

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

69 entries 4 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Vernonia School Dist. 47j Vs. Acton US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1995
  2. Virginia Vs. Black US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 2003
  3. Meyer Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1923
  4. Syllabus October Term, 2006 Morse V. Frederick
    Search
  5. student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des
    Search
  6. id., at 513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser
    Search
  7. dissenting in part. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Morse v. Frederick
    Search
  8. Opinion of the Court Morse V. Frederick
    Search
  9. Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-278 Deborah Morse, Et Al., Petitioners V. Joseph
    Search
  10. Tinker v. Des
    Search
  11. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser
    Search
  12. Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier
    Search
  13. There is some uncertainty at the outer boundaries as to when courts should apply school-speech precedents, see Porter v. Ascension
    Search
  14. between celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion. See Guiles v. Marineau
    Search
  15. Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, it would have been protected. See Cohen v. California
    Search
  16. inadequate to decide the case before us. Qualified immunity shields public officials from money damages only. See Wood v. Strickland
    Search
  17. s effort to find inconsistency between our approach here and the opinion in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin
    Search
  18. s banner is political speech of the sort at issue in Wisconsin Right to Life . Morse v. Frederick
    Search
  19. Thomas, J., Concurring Morse V. Frederick
    Search
  20. and therefore join its opinion in full. I write separately to state my view that the standard set forth in Tinker v. Des
    Search
  21. Chaplinsky v. New
    Search
  22. see also Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  23. State v. Pendergrass
    Search
  24. of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order. Sheehan v. Sturges
    Search
  25. Patterson v. Nutter
    Search
  26. in front of other students. Lander v. Seaver
    Search
  27. Wooster v. Sunderland
    Search
  28. Deskins v. Gose
    Search
  29. Vanvactor v. State
    Search
  30. was wholly discretionary as long as the teacher did not act with legal malice or cause permanent injury. E.g., Boyd v. State
    Search
  31. Gardner v. State
    Search
  32. Anderson v. State
    Search
  33. Hardy v. James
    Search
  34. s standard, or rather set the standard aside on an ad hoc basis. In Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser
    Search
  35. U. S., at 683. Similarly, in Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier
    Search
  36. schools to allow all student speech. Parents decide whether to send their children to public schools. Cf. Hamilton v. Regents
    Search
  37. s age. See, e.g., Stevens v. Fassett
    Search
  38. State v. Mizner
    Search
  39. Sheehan v. Sturges
    Search
  40. favor the broad discretion given to teachers to impose corporal punishment recognized that the law provided it. Cooper v. McJunkin
    Search
  41. upheld punishment when children refused to speak after being requested to do so by their teachers. See Board of Ed. v. Helston
    Search
  42. cf. Sewell v. Board
    Search
  43. to recognize the applicability of the in loco parentis doctrine to public schools. See Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton
    Search
  44. the cases the Court cited in favor of that bold proposition do not support it. Tinker chiefly relies upon Meyer v. Nebraska
    Search
  45. rights apply within schools operated by the State. And notably, Meyer relied as its chief support on the Lochner v. New
    Search
  46. line of cases, 262 U. S., at 399, a line of cases that has long been criticized, United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer
    Search
  47. Tinker also relied on Pierce v. Society
    Search
  48. In Tinker v. Des
    Search
  49. Petitioners V. Joseph
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial