Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Staub Vs. City of Baxley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 13, 1958

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

70 entries 8 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. First National Bank Vs. Anderson US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1926
  2. Largent Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Mar 08, 1943
  3. Niemotko Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1951
  4. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  5. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Vs. Mellon US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1923
  6. Schuylkill Trust Co. Vs. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1935
  7. Chastleton Corp. Vs. Sinclair US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1924
  8. Hatch Vs. Reardon US Supreme Court · Jan 07, 1907
  9. Staub v. City
    Search
  10. of Baxley - 355 U.S. 313 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Staub v. City
    Search
  11. of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958) Staub v. City
    Search
  12. U. S. 341 , 269 U. S. 346 , and cases cited. See also Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  13. and Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  14. U. S. 444 , 303 U. S. 450 . As Mr. Justice Holmes said in Davis v. Wechsler
    Search
  15. grounds, plainly untenable, may be thus put forward successfully, our power to review easily may be avoided. Ward v. Love
    Search
  16. the Constitution does not preclude review in this Court of a judgment of conviction under such an ordinance. Smith v. Cahoon
    Search
  17. Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  18. Ward v. Love
    Search
  19. Flynn v. State
    Search
  20. In enunciating that rule, the court was following a long line of its own decisions. Atlantic Loan Co. v. Peterson
    Search
  21. Miller v. Head
    Search
  22. Stegall v. Southwest
    Search
  23. Krasner v. Rutledge
    Search
  24. from invasion by state action, and municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action. Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  25. controlling guides governing the action of the Mayor and Council in granting or withholding a permit. Cf. Niemotko v. Maryland
    Search
  26. official -- is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. In Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  27. U.S. at 310 U. S. 305 , 310 U. S. 307 . To the same effect are Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  28. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  29. Schneider v. Page
    Search
  30. Kunz v. New
    Search
  31. Section v. The
    Search
  32. Staub v. Mayor
    Search
  33. confronted with any question concerning the right of the city to regulate the pursuit of an occupation. Cf. Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  34. governing the discretion of the park commissioner in granting or refusing such permits and referring to Hague v. CIO
    Search
  35. Lovell v. Griffin
    Search
  36. ordinance, and not against the ordinance as a whole. On this doctrine of Georgia appellate procedure, it cited Anthony v. City
    Search
  37. of Atlanta, 66 Ga.App. 504, 505, 18 S.E.2d 81-82, which, in turn, cited Glover v. City
    Search
  38. Act has served as one of the most nationalizing forces in our history. By that section, as construed in Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  39. Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, strongly reinforced by Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  40. is, of course, for this Court to pass on the substantive sufficiency of a claim of federal right, First National Bank v. Anderson
    Search
  41. and appellate, that govern adjudication of all constitutional issues in that State. Edelman v. California
    Search
  42. Parker v. Illinois
    Search
  43. U. S. 571 . In Nickel v. Cole
    Search
  44. as circumstances will permit. See the classic statement of the unanimous Court in Liverpool, N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. v. Commissioners
    Search
  45. by Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his well known concurring opinion, frequently cited and always approvingly, in Ashwander v. Tennessee
    Search
  46. limited aspects of a statute that alone may affect the rights of a particular litigant before the Court. See Muskrat v. United
    Search
  47. U. S. 447 . A statute may be found invalid in some of its parts but valid in others, see Dorchy v. Kansas
    Search
  48. U. S. 286 , 264 U. S. 289 -290, it may be valid at one time and not another, see Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair
    Search
  49. U. S. 547 -548, it may be valid under one state of facts, but not another, see Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Anderson
    Search
  50. U. S. 329 -330, it may be valid as to one class of persons and invalid as to others, see New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial