Citation network
Prince Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 31, 1944
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 158 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. 158 (1944) Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Cf. Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
First Article can be given higher place than the others. All have preferred position in our basic scheme. Schneider v. StateSearch
-
of state power voicing it, have had recognition here, most recently in West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
U.S. Page 321 U. S. 166 624. Previously, in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and the child's right to receive it, as against the state's requirement of attendance at public schools. And in Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
or the child Page 321 U. S. 167 to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. PiersonSearch
-
shown to be necessary for or conducive to the child's protection against some clear and present danger, cf. Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
the statute in its present application must fall. It cannot be sustained by any presumption of validity. Cf. Schneider v. StateSearch
-
except that it is applicable to adults or all persons generally, would be invalid. Young v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Nichols v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Martin v. CitySearch
-
Cf. the facts as set forth in Jamison v. TexasSearch
-
Busey v. DistrictSearch
-
In this respect, the Massachusetts decision is contrary to the trend in other states. Compare State v. MeadSearch
-
State v. MeredithSearch
-
Semansky v. StarkSearch
-
Shreveport v. TeagueSearch
-
People v. BarberSearch
-
Thomas v. AtlantaSearch
-
Cincinnati v. MosierSearch
-
McSparran v. PortlandSearch
-
State v. BaileySearch
-
Meyer v. NebraskaSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
Sturges & Burn Mfg. Co. v. BeauchampSearch
-
Muller v. OregonSearch
-
Cf. People v. EwerSearch
-
State v. ChenowethSearch
-
Owens v. StateSearch
-
Lovell v. CitySearch
-
Hague v. CommitteeSearch
-
Cox v. NewSearch
-
Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
prohibited transactions. The state court has construed these statutes to cover the activities here involved, cf. State v. RichardsonSearch
-
belief, we are not aided by any strong presumption of the constitutionality of such legislation. United States v. CaroleneSearch
-
S. 174 that justifies such a drastic restriction when the distribution is part of their religious faith. Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial