Citation network
Cramp Vs. Board of Public Instruction
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 11, 1961
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
-
Cramp v. BoardSearch
-
of Public Instruction - 368 U.S. 278 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Cramp v. BoardSearch
-
of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278 (1961) Cramp v. BoardSearch
-
state statute in this Court is, however, a separate issue to which we must bring our independent judgment. Tileston v. UllmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Doremus v. BoardSearch
-
Commonwealth v. MellonSearch
-
the appellant to execute the oath or suffer immediate discharge from public employment. See United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
Adler v. BoardSearch
-
deterrence of constitutionally protected conduct -- have been repeatedly pointed out in our decisions. See Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
Cline v. FrinkSearch
-
Lanzetta v. PageSearch
-
Winters v. NewSearch
-
York, 333 U. S. 507 . See also Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
which all who are compelled to execute an unconstitutionally vague and indefinite oath may be exposed. Cf. Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
because he now personally believes he could eventually prevail in the event he were prosecuted for perjury. Cf. Staub v. CitySearch
-
that claim. II The Florida Supreme Court first considered the provisions of this legislative oath in State v. DiezSearch
-
York, 333 U. S. 507 , 333 U. S. 514 . See Kingsley Intern. Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
Aero Mayflower Transit Co. v. CommissionersSearch
-
Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
Lanzetta v. NewSearch
-
Champlin Refining Co. v. CorporationSearch
-
to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively protected by the Constitution. As we said in Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 359 , 283 U. S. 369 . See also Herndon v. LowrySearch
-
York, 333 U. S. 507 . As in Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
U. S. 192 . Nor do we question the power of a State to safeguard the public service from disloyalty. Cf. Slochower v. BoardSearch
-
DOUGLAS join the Court's judgment and opinion, but also adhere to the view expressed in their dissents in Adler v. BoardSearch
-
Garner v. LosSearch
-
Barenblatt v. UnitedSearch
-
and to their concurrences in Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
State v. DiezSearch
-
the power is shown to exist and its assertion is necessitated by the exigencies of the public wellbeing. Barenblatt v. UnitedSearch
-
of anyone who can read English as to the requirements of the statute and the effect of a failure to comply. Adler v. BoardSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cramp v. BoardSearch
-
See United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
See Connally v. GeneralSearch
-
Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Cf. Thornhill v. AlabamaSearch
-
Cf. Staub v. CitySearch
-
See Kingsley Intern. Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial