Citation network
Barsky Vs. Board of Regents
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 26, 1954
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
- Relied / Followed
- Distinguished
-
Barsky v. BoardSearch
-
of Regents - 347 U.S. 442 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court Barsky v. BoardSearch
-
of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954) Barsky v. BoardSearch
-
See United States v. BryanSearch
-
United States v. BarskySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F.Supp. 165. In 1948, this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Barsky v. UnitedSearch
-
action by it for declaratory and Page 347 U. S. 456 injunctive relief ( Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
For related litigation, see United States v. BryanSearch
-
See Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
This Court, however, has held that the Attorney General's list was unlawful, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
And certainly, since our recent holding in United States v. RumelySearch
-
the federal offense of refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena as involving no moral turpitude. Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 , 209 U. S. 148 , and Oklahoma Operating Co. v. LoveSearch
-
See Adler v. BoardSearch
-
et seq., 704, 801 et seq. On motion picture censorship by the Regents see Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSearch
-
of doctors by the Regents' investigators and the narrowness of judicial review afforded accused doctors, see Weinstein v. BoardSearch
-
the regular judicial branch of the government is barred is certainly not wholly clear. Compare Ohio Valley Water Co. v. BenSearch
-
Avon Borough, 253 U. S. 287 , Ng Fung Ho v. WhiteSearch
-
U. S. 276 , and St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 298 U. S. 38 , with Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
See Davis v. SchnellSearch
-
F.Supp. 872, 877, where, in an opinion by Mullins, D.J., a three-judge district court, following Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
the decision in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
Page 347 U. S. 470 of explaining presumably conscientious action by appropriate State authorities. Douglas v. NobleSearch
-
is precisely the kind of State action which the Due Process Clause forbids. See Perkins Page 347 U. S. 471 v. ElgSearch
-
Rex v. NorthumberlandSearch
-
would have felt compelled to hold that the Due Process Clause disallows it. See Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
the decision below may rest on a constitutionally inadmissible ground, the judgment should not stand. Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Williams v. NorthSearch
-
See McAuliffe v. CitySearch
-
organization, is wholly innocent of any unlawful purpose or activity. Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
It prevents a teacher from being put in a lower salary scale than white teachers solely because he is a Negro. Alston v. SchoolSearch
-
As to the right to work, See also Cummings v. MissouriSearch
-
Takahashi v. FishSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Barsky v. BoardSearch
-
the Court of Appeals, Barsky v. UnitedSearch
-
Sinclair v. UnitedSearch
-
and Oklahoma Operating Co. v. LoveSearch
-
Weinstein v. BoardSearch
-
Compare Ohio Valley Water Co. v. BenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial