Citation network
Niemotko Vs. Maryland
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 15, 1951
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
-
U.S. 268 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Niemotko v. MarylandSearch
-
U.S. 268 (1951) Niemotko v. MarylandSearch
-
of lower courts, but will reexamine the evidentiary basis on which those conclusions are founded. See Feiner v. NewSearch
-
times examined the licensing systems by which local bodies regulate the use of their parks and public places. See Kunz v. NewSearch
-
York, decided this day, post, p. 340 U. S. 290 . See also Saia v. NewSearch
-
Hague v. CIOSearch
-
Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
absence of narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards for the officials to follow, must be invalid. See Kunz v. NewSearch
-
Together with No. 18, Kelley v. MarylandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a general limitation upon what may be said or written bring additional factors into the equation. Cases like Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
and Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
in public places. But here also enter economic and social interests outside the situations before us. See Hughes v. SuperiorSearch
-
scarcely justify prohibiting the dissemination of information by handbills or censoring their contents. In Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
Id. at 303 U. S. 451 . In Hague v. CIOSearch
-
U. S. 496 , a portion of the ordinance declared invalid prohibited the distribution of pamphlets. In Schneider v. StateSearch
-
three of the four ordinances declared invalid by the Court prohibited the distribution of pamphlets. In Jamison v. TexasSearch
-
fraud and from criminals who use solicitation as a device to enter homes. The fourth ordinance considered in Schneider v. StateSearch
-
in effect held the power of censorship. In Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Id. at 310 U. S. 305 . Again, in Largent v. TexasSearch
-
in control of a company town or Government housing project to prohibit solicitation by Jehovah's Witnesses. Marsh v. AlabamaSearch
-
U. S. 517 . In Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
another opposing interest -- the right of the community to raise funds for the support of the government. In Jones v. OpelikaSearch
-
U. S. 103 , vacating 316 U. S. 584 , and in Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 105 , the Court held that imposition of the tax upon itinerants was improper. In Follett v. McCormickSearch
-
the imposition of a flat tax on book agents upon a resident who made his living selling religious books. 4. Martin v. StruthersSearch
-
distributed on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses. 5. In contrast to these decisions, the Court held in Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
for which streets and parks exist. (a) The pioneer case concerning speaking in parks and streets is Davis v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of the opinion below written by Mr. Justice Holmes, while on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Commonwealth v. DavisSearch
-
the right of a city to exercise any power over its parks, however, arbitrary or discriminatory, was rejected in Hague v. CIOSearch
-
And the construction given the ordinance in the State courts gave the licensing officials wide discretion. See Thomas v. CaseySearch
-
to suppress free expression, no matter under what cover of law they purported to act. Page 340 U. S. 280 Cox v. NewSearch
-
each case. (b) Two cases have involved the additional considerations incident to the use of sound trucks. In Saia v. NewSearch
-
refused because of the content of the speeches. Nevertheless, the Court held the ordinance unconstitutional. In Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
on a limitation upon speech by a sanction imposed after the event, rather than by a licensing statute. In Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
was for common law breach of the peace. The problem was resolved in favor of the defendant by reference to Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. at 310 U. S. 311 . In Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
it involved a conviction for breach of peace in a private building, rather than in a public place. In Terminiello v. ChicagoSearch
-
procedure under which it is applied, too readily permits censorship of religion by the licensing authorities. Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
questions merely by phrasing its opinion in terms of an ultimate standard which in itself satisfies due process. Watts v. IndianaSearch
-
Baumgartner v. UnitedSearch
-
Appleby v. NewSearch
-
favor of Kunz, a man whose vituperative utterances must have been highly offensive to them. As was said in Hague v. CIOSearch
-
In M'Ara v. MagistratesSearch
-
underlying the present appeal. The first time, the Court had to consider the ordinance was on an appeal from People v. SmithSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial