Citation network
Uphaus Vs. Wyman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 08, 1959
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. 72 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Uphaus v. WymanSearch
-
U.S. 72 (1959) Uphaus v. WymanSearch
-
Attorney General to investigate violations thereof have not been superseded by the Smith Act, as amended. Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
whether corporate activities violate state policy stands unimpaired either by the Smith Act or by Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
does not preclude the State from compelling Page 360 U. S. 73 production of the names of the guests. Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 , and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. AlabamaSearch
-
we vacated the judgment, 355 U. S. 16 , and remanded the case to it for consideration in the light of Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
as construed Page 360 U. S. 75 by this Court in Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
See Radio Station WOW v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In support of this position appellant cites Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
that it can legitimately investigate in this area follows a fortiori. In Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
surrounding the case because of its setting. First, the academic and political freedoms discussed in Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Next, since questions concerning the authority of the committee to act as it did are questions of state law, Dreyer v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 78 identity the committee seeks to determine. See National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. AlabamaSearch
-
against the individual interests which the appellant asserts. National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. AlabamaSearch
-
the Attorney General's list is designed for the limited purpose of determining fitness for federal employment, Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
Dennis v. UnitedSearch
-
privacy which, however real in other circumstances, cf. National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. AlabamaSearch
-
constitutionally protected rights of appellant and those he may represent. Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
of producing them. In view of appellant's unjustified refusal, we think the order a proper one. As was said in Green v. UnitedSearch
-
be found in this record. Exposure purely for the sake of exposure is not such a valid subordinating purpose. Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
freedom of speech and assembly from improper invasion, whether by the national or the state legislatures. See Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
limitations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments has been canvassed quite fully, beginning as early as Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
York, 268 U. S. 652 , and Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
to a profession, has also been recognized as being subject to the restraints of the Constitution. See, e.g., Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
Schware v. BoardSearch
-
that the power of investigation, whether exercised in aid of the governmental legislative power, see Watkins v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, or in aid of the governmental power to adjudicate disputes, see NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
as inevitably to inhibit seriously the expression of views which the Constitution intended to make free. Cf. Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
give constitutional protection against incursion Page 360 U. S. 87 by the powers of government. Cf. Sweezy v. NewSearch
-
Communism v. ReligionSearch
-
were undertaken, we would have that narrowed context in which to relate the State's demand for exposure. Cf. NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
a corporation, and may relate to the protected activities of other persons, rather than those of himself. In NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
a corporate bookseller) to decline to produce the names of those who had purchased his books. Cf. United States v. RumelySearch
-
has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. OregonSearch
-
liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
Staub v. CitySearch
-
the State's interest in carrying out a legislative investigation, as was said in a similar context in United States v. RumelySearch
-
the least, readily susceptible of many applications in which it might enter a constitutional danger zone. See Yates v. UnitedSearch
-
be applied at all insofar as it amounted to a sanction for behavior directed against the United States. Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Uphaus v. WymanSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. NelsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial