Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Harrison Vs. Naacp

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

63 entries 12 linked 51 unlinked
Show
  1. Matthews Vs. Rodgers US Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1932
  2. American Federation of Labor Vs. Watson US Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1946
  3. Shipman Vs. Dupre US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1950
  4. Albertson Vs. Millard US Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1953
  5. United States Vs. Rumely US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  6. Buchanan Vs. Warley US Supreme Court · Nov 05, 1917
    Distinguished
  7. Thomas Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
    Distinguished
  8. Lane Vs. Wilson US Supreme Court · May 22, 1939
  9. United States Vs. Harriss US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1954
  10. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
    Distinguished
  11. Nixon Vs. Herndon US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  12. Nixon Vs. Condon US Supreme Court · May 02, 1932
  13. U.S. 167 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Harrison v. NAACP
    Search
  14. U.S. 167 (1959) Harrison v. National
    Search
  15. to nullify as far as possible the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board
    Search
  16. Railroad Commission v. Pullman
    Search
  17. until the state courts have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to pass upon them. See, e.g., Railroad Commission v. Pullman
    Search
  18. Chicago v. Fieldcrest
    Search
  19. Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin
    Search
  20. Government & Civic Employees v. Windsor
    Search
  21. and it spares the federal courts of unnecessary constitutional adjudication. See Chicago v. Fieldcrest
    Search
  22. to litigation expense, including NAACP because of the relationship of that organization to its members. Cf. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  23. of constitutional adjudication, also cannot be ignored. Page 360 U. S. 178 Government & Civic Employees v. Windsor
    Search
  24. of Chapter 32, for example, might be construed as reaching only that directed at the incitement of violence. Cf. Yates v. United
    Search
  25. United States v. Harriss
    Search
  26. And, in connection with these and the membership and contributor list requirements of Chapters 31 and 32, cf. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  27. treats legislative acts as separable, where possible, even in the absence of such an express provision. See Woolfolk v. Driver
    Search
  28. In this, the District Court relied on United States v. Harriss
    Search
  29. The lower court cited, among other cases, American Communications Ass'n v. Douds
    Search
  30. Schenck v. United
    Search
  31. Dennis v. United
    Search
  32. Grosjean v. American
    Search
  33. and distinguished New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman
    Search
  34. Citing United States v. Harriss
    Search
  35. On the latter ground, the court distinguished such cases as Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  36. U. S. 296 , and Burroughs v. United
    Search
  37. and cited Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  38. state court has construed these laws is a judge-made rule. It was fashioned in 1941 in the decision of Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman
    Search
  39. the color of the Virginia statutes, had deprived them of civil rights secured by the Federal Constitution. See Hague v. CIO
    Search
  40. of this Court in Brown v. Board
    Search
  41. state schemes intended to emasculate constitutional provisions or circumvent our constitutional decisions. In Guinn v. United
    Search
  42. without requiring any submission of the amendment to the state courts to see how they might narrow it. Schnell v. Davis
    Search
  43. cases. It starts with Nixon v. Herndon
    Search
  44. this Court overturned the restriction. Nixon v. Condon
    Search
  45. U. S. 73 , 286 U. S. 89 . In Smith v. Allwright
    Search
  46. we held that approval by the state party convention of he discriminating prohibition did not save it. And see Terry v. Adams
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Harrison v. NAACP
    Search
  48. Harrison v. National
    Search
  49. Brown v. Board
    Search
  50. See Chicago v. Fieldcrest
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial