Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Craig Vs. Harney

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 19, 1947

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

58 entries 8 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Murdock Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · May 03, 1943
  2. Bridges Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1941
  3. Pierre Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1939
  4. Chambers Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1940
  5. Lisenba Vs. California US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1941
  6. Skiriotes Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1941
  7. Patterson Vs. Colorado US Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1907
  8. Craig Vs. Hecht US Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1923
  9. U.S. 367 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Craig v. Harney
    Search
  10. U.S. 367 (1947) Craig v. Harney
    Search
  11. for contempt violated the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Following Bridges v. California
    Search
  12. U. S. 252 , and Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  13. and because the ruling of the Texas court raised doubts whether it conformed to the principles announced in Bridges v. California
    Search
  14. of newspapers published in Corpus Christi, Texas. The County Court had before it a forcible detainer case, Jackson v. Mayes
    Search
  15. test was satisfied have a striking resemblance to the findings which the Court in Toledo Newspaper Co. v. Page
    Search
  16. to obstruct the administration of justice. We revisited that case in Nye v. United
    Search
  17. States, 313 U. S. 33 , 313 U. S. 52 , and disapproved it. And in Bridges v. California
    Search
  18. we held that the compulsion of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth ( Schneider v. Irvington
    Search
  19. S. at 314 U. S. 260 -264. We Page 331 U. S. 373 reaffirmed and reapplied that standard in Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  20. comment on cases pending before it and awaiting disposition. The history of the power to punish for contempt ( see Nye v. United
    Search
  21. by the Constitution, an independent examination of the facts by this Court is often required to be made. See Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  22. Page 331 U. S. 374 Ashcraft v. Tennessee
    Search
  23. and one-sided report of a case any imminent or serious threat to a judge of reasonable fortitude. See Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  24. See Craig v. Hecht
    Search
  25. give fair consideration to the motion for rehearing. There is a suggestion that the case is different from Bridges v. California
    Search
  26. to the Texas procedure where there is an adjudication of contempt for violating an order in a civil cause, see Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  27. U. S. 69 , 313 U. S. 79 . To paraphrase what was said in Rippey v. Texas
    Search
  28. Court minimizes these findings by pointing to a likeness between them and those that were made in Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United
    Search
  29. and found inadequate by Mr. Justice Holmes' dissent, an inadequacy subsequently supported by our decision in Nye v. United
    Search
  30. States, 313 U. S. 33 . The Court also draws on Craig v. Hecht
    Search
  31. Nye v. United
    Search
  32. So wrote Mr. Justice Holmes for this Court. Patterson v. Colorado
    Search
  33. So he wrote, dissenting, in Craig v. Hecht
    Search
  34. by Mr. Justice Holmes, he referred to his opinion in the Patterson case, and not with disapproval. See Schenck v. United
    Search
  35. Mr. Justice Brandeis, in Schaefer v. United
    Search
  36. which we have been told is due to a State would then be merely an empty profession. See Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  37. or avows that he came awfully close to being derelict in his judicial duty because of such pressure. In Bridges v. California
    Search
  38. conduct is called in question to sit in judgment upon the contemnor because self-interest is too great, see Tumey v. Ohio
    Search
  39. U. S. 510 , and Cooke v. United
    Search
  40. U.S. Supreme Court Craig v. Harney
    Search
  41. the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Following Bridges v. California
    Search
  42. and Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  43. Jackson v. Mayes
    Search
  44. Toledo Newspaper Co. v. Page
    Search
  45. Schneider v. Irvington
    Search
  46. Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  47. See Norris v. Alabama
    Search
  48. See Pennekamp v. Florida
    Search
  49. Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  50. Rippey v. Texas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial