Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Uphaus Vs. Wyman

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 14, 1960

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

32 entries 3 linked 29 unlinked
Show
  1. RochIn Vs. California US Supreme Court · Jan 02, 1952
  2. United States Vs. Lovett US Supreme Court · Jun 03, 1946
  3. American Communications Assn. Vs. Douds US Supreme Court · May 08, 1950
  4. U.S. 388 (1960) U.S. Supreme Court Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  5. U.S. 388 (1960) Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  6. N.H. 461, 159 A.2d 160. PER CURIAM. In view of the Court's decision in Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  7. Wyman v. Uphaus
    Search
  8. no longer wanted him to produce the list of names. In consequence, while I remain of the view that the Court in Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  9. dissent of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and agree with him that, since the New Hampshire law upheld by this Court in Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  10. direct abridgments of First Amendment freedoms, has been fully expressed in previous cases. See, e.g., Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  11. States, 360 U. S. 109 , 360 U. S. 141 -146 (dissenting opinion), Beauharnais v. Illinois
    Search
  12. Thus, the case falls squarely within the holding of this Court in United States v. Lovett
    Search
  13. Beauharnais v. Illinois
    Search
  14. American Communications Ass'n v. Douds
    Search
  15. Harrison v. Evans
    Search
  16. disclosure. On June 8, 1959, we affirmed his conviction in the state courts of New Hampshire by a divided vote. Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  17. were demanded. In such a case, the defendant carries the keys to freedom in his own pocket, as pointed out in Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  18. requirement to produce assumes that their production is relevant to some interest of the State. As stated in Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  19. have no apparent pertinency when an issue of civil contempt is tendered. Are the principles announced in Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  20. of the legislature, Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  21. abridge the rights of members to engage in lawful association in support of their common beliefs. We said in NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  22. forms of governmental action which might interfere with freedom as assembly, it said in American Communications Assn. v. Douds
    Search
  23. us that World Fellowship, Inc., was at any time engaged in any conduct that could be called unlawful. We had NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  24. as individual who possessed membership lists challenged the right of government to demand their production. In Bates v. Little
    Search
  25. to bear only after the exercise of governmental power had threatened to force disclosure of the members' names. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  26. association as the members of the other. These rights extend even to Communists, as a unanimous Court held in De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Uphaus v. Wyman
    Search
  28. Barenblatt v. United
    Search
  29. Beauharnais v. Illinois
    Search
  30. NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  31. In Bates v. Little
    Search
  32. De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial