Citation network
Kunz Vs. New York
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
-
Kunz v. NewSearch
-
York - 340 U.S. 290 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Kunz v. NewSearch
-
York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951) Kunz v. NewSearch
-
Hague v. CIOSearch
-
enacted which prevents Page 340 U. S. 294 serious interference with normal usage of streets and parks, Cox v. NewSearch
-
to grant or withhold a permit upon broad criteria unrelated to proper regulation of public places. In Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U.S. at 310 U. S. 307 . To the same effect are Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
U. S. 418 (1943). In Saia v. NewSearch
-
Near Page 340 U. S. 295 v. MinnesotaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
This ordinance was previously challenged in People v. SmithSearch
-
N.Y. 255, 188 N.E. 745, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, Smith v. NewSearch
-
at his service to hurl insults at the passerby. What Mr. Justice Holmes said for a unanimous Court in Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
Emphasis supplied.) Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. CheekSearch
-
I understand, though disagree with, the minority in the Feiner case, Feiner v. NewSearch
-
for years, Page 340 U. S. 301 has played some part in free speech cases. Cf. American Communications Ass'n v. DoudsSearch
-
S. 382 , 339 U. S. 393 . If New York has benefit of the rule as Mr. Justice Holmes announced it, Schenck v. UnitedSearch
-
So said we all in Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
rights. Such is the case where it aims to control matters patently not a proper subject of the police power. Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
U. S. 444 , 303 U. S. 451 . Cf. Hague V. CioSearch
-
Saia v. NewSearch
-
consideration both the facts of the case and the construction which the State has placed on the challenged law. Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
we have said the proper procedure is not to pass on whether it conflicts with First Amendment rights. United States v. PetrilloSearch
-
was regarded by this Court as consistent with the Constitution. It approved this identical ordinance in Smith v. NewSearch
-
case that the Constitution would not protect one from an injunction against uttering words that lead to riot. In Cox v. NewSearch
-
day jurists. The Court, as authority for stripping New York City of control of street meetings, resurrects Saia v. NewSearch
-
York, supra, which I, like some who now rely on it, had supposed was given decent burial by Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
as to the press, there are the best of reasons against any licensing or prior restraint. Decisions such as Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
not infrequently disagrees with its former self or relies on distinctions that are not very substantial. Compare Jones v. OpelikaSearch
-
of 1942, 316 U. S. 584 , with Jones v. OpelikaSearch
-
of 1943, 319 U. S. 103 , Minersville School District v. GobitisSearch
-
U. S. 586 , with West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
Page 340 U. S. 309 York of 1948, supra, with Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
protection grounds, I should very much doubt if the ordinance could be sustained. See, however, Railway Express Agency v. NewSearch
-
Brandeis, J., concurring, in Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
JUSTICES BLACK and DOUGLAS dissenting. Hass v. NewSearch
-
The issue was drawn for them with clarity by Chief Judge Pound in People v. SmithSearch
-
Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
I join in Feiner v. NewSearch
-
not be made a crime because within constitutional protection. As Mr. Justice Holmes for a unanimous Court in Frohwerk v. UnitedSearch
-
such, cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language. Robertson v. BaldwinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Kunz v. NewSearch
-
Cox v. NewSearch
-
In Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial