Wieman V Updegraff - Judgment Search Results

N.P. Nathwani Vs. the Commissioner of Police

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR1

certainly not where it will be criticised, which in the words of Justice Black (in the case of Wieman v. Updegraff (1952) 97 L.ed. 216means that the State Government is preserving the freedoms (of speech and discussion) not for … Industrial Organization (1939) 83 L.ed 1423, at p. 1425 referred to.;In re Alberta Statutes [1938] S.C.R. (Canada) 100 followed.;Wieman v. Updegraff (1952) 97 L.ed 216 and Jawaharlal Nehru's Selected Works, Vol. 7, pp. 410-411, followed.;Petitioners entitled to following reliefs:

Wieman Vs. Updegraff

Court: US Supreme Court

Wieman v. Updegraff - 344 U.S. 183 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952) Wieman v. Updegraff … Wieman v. Updegraff - 344 U.S. 183 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952) Wieman v. Updegraff No. 14 Argued October 16, 1952 Decided December 15, 1952 344

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1983SC374; 1983(31)BLJR220; 1983LabIC511; (1983)ILLJ299SC; 1983(1)SCALE134; (1983)2SCC145; [1983]2SCR393; 1983(1)SLJ392(SC)

with our own convictions is necessarily wicked or treasonous-then we are approaching the end of freedom's road....5. In Wieman V. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, Black J. said, in one of the notorious loyalty oath cases and, it is worth

Fcc Vs. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

234 , 244 (2002); Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm. , 372 U. S. 539 , 556-557 (1963); Wieman v. Updegraff , 344 U. S. 183 , 195 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Had the FCC used traditional administrative notice-and-comment

Koontz Vs. St. Johns River Water Management Dist.

Court: US Supreme Court

speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit” (emphasis added and inter- nal quotation marks omitted)); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 191 (1952) (explaining in unconstitutional conditions case that to focus on “the facile generalization

Albright Vs. Oliver

Court: US Supreme Court

ordinance that prohibited certain relatives from residing together because it had only a "tenuous relation" to its goals); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 , 191 (1952) (requiring loyalty oaths of public employees violates due process because "[i]ndiscriminate

Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. Vs. Umbehr

Court: US Supreme Court

protected from dismissal for re- 675 fusing to take an oath regarding their political affiliation, see, e. g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 (1952); Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 385

Spencer Vs. Kemna

Court: US Supreme Court

should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt"); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 , 190-191 (1952) ("There can be no dispute about the consequences visited upon a

Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System Vs. Southworth

Court: US Supreme Court

whether it is a necessary one. 3 We have long recognized the constitutional importance of academic freedom. See Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 , 195 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 … or associations, id., at 591-592; Shelton v. Tucker, supra, at 487; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, supra, at 236; Wieman v. Updegraff, supra, at 184-185, and cases dealing with the right of teaching institutions to limit expressive freedom of students

Grutter Vs. Bollinger

Court: US Supreme Court

thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition. See, e. g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183 , 195 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234