Citation network
Poulos Vs. New Hampshire
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1953
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
-
Poulos v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire - 345 U.S. 395 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Poulos v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953) Poulos v. NewSearch
-
him at any public place and at any time a group for discussion or instruction. P. 345 U. S. 405 . (c) Kunz v. NewSearch
-
York, 340 U. S. 290 , and Saia v. NewSearch
-
be sought through appropriate judicial procedure violates due process. P. 345 U. S. 409 . (c) Royall v. VirginiaSearch
-
and Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
a different clause of an identical section, so far as pertinent, of a New Hampshire statute, against one Cox. State v. CoxSearch
-
State v. DerricksonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
N.H. 91, 92, 81 A.2d 312, 313. In Cox v. NewSearch
-
The Superior Court passed upon the issues raised. It held that Cox v. NewSearch
-
It held the ordinance valid on its face under Cox v. NewSearch
-
This was the first ruling on the public speech clause. Cf. State v. CoxSearch
-
Cox v. NewSearch
-
exercises in Goodwin Park. Our conclusion takes into consideration the interpretive limitation repeated from Cox v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 398 of this opinion. This state interpretation is as though written into the ordinance itself. Winters v. NewSearch
-
on its face, the Supreme Court determined the validity of the ordinance as applied. See Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. BondurantSearch
-
Charleston Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. AldersonSearch
-
public parks, this Court has taken the same position. See the quotation from the Hague case below and Kunz v. NewSearch
-
Saia v. NewSearch
-
Page 345 U. S. 410 It is said that Royall v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 296 , 310 U. S. 306 , and Thomas v. CollinsSearch
-
U.S. at 116 U. S. 582 -583. In Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
King Mfg. Co. v. AugustaSearch
-
the ordinance is valid on its face. It is identical in language with the statute that was construed as valid in State v. CoxSearch
-
N.H. 137, 16 A.2d 508, which was affirmed in Cox v. NewSearch
-
N.H. at 356, 88 A.2d at 862-863. Distinguishing Hague v. CIOSearch
-
N.H. at 357, 88 A.2d at 863. This conclusion follows the rule in State v. StevensSearch
-
door-to-door canvassing for subscriptions contrary to the reasonable limitations of a municipal ordinance. See Breard v. AlexandriaSearch
-
U. S. 622 , 341 U. S. 641 . Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
In considering a required permit in Hague v. CIOSearch
-
Pp. 307 U. S. 515 -516. Schneider v. NewSearch
-
defense. It is also true that others punish activities without a license, following an unlawful refusal. Commonwealth v. McCarthySearch
-
State v. StevensSearch
-
Phoenix Carpet Co. v. StateSearch
-
City of Montpelier v. MillsSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GardnerSearch
-
State v. OrrSearch
-
City of Malden v. FlynnSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Poulos v. NewSearch
-
Kunz v. NewSearch
-
and Saia v. NewSearch
-
Cox. State v. CoxSearch
-
In Cox v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial