Appellant used sound equipment mounted on his truck to comment on a labor dispute. He was convicted in a police court of violating a city ordinance which prohibited the use on any public street of sound amplifying devices emitting loud and raucous noises. The intermediate court of appeal of New Jersey, in affirming the conviction, construed the ordinance to be an absolute prohibition. The conviction was sustained on appeal to the highest court of New Jersey by an evenly divided court of twelve justices. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed. Justice Reed, joined by Chief Justice Vinson and Justice Burton, found that the ordinance was not a denial of due process of law in that it was sufficiently definite and did not c...
Defendant-appellant was charged with violation of a Los Angeles municipal ordinance which required a...
Opposing counsel\u27s objection to material in petitioner\u27s opening statement to the jury was sus...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...
Defendant, a Jehovah\u27s Witness, was convicted of conducting a public meeting in a city park witho...
The recent decision by the federal district court in the case of Committee for Industrial Organizati...
It is the purpose of this comment to explore only one small part of the problem: the flight for free...
Defendant appeared before the New Hampshire attorney general, who was authorized by statute to inves...
The ordinance here involved prohibited any person from addressing a political or religious meeting i...
In March 1951, defendant, a New York City policeman, was called to testify before a state grand jury...
Local police officers entered the private office of petitioner, a practising physician, without a wa...
The editor and publisher of the Miami Herald published two editorials and a cartoon which inaccurate...
Defendant addressed a crowd of people, white and Negro, on a public sidewalk for the purpose of urgi...
Petitioner desired to display for profit a privately owned submarine. Upon application, he was denie...
People v. Bunis, 9 N.Y.2d 1, 210 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1961); People v. Merolla, 9 N.Y.2d 62, 211 N.Y.S.2d 1...
Appellant applied for renewal of his radio operator\u27s license but refused to complete an FCC form...
Defendant-appellant was charged with violation of a Los Angeles municipal ordinance which required a...
Opposing counsel\u27s objection to material in petitioner\u27s opening statement to the jury was sus...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...
Defendant, a Jehovah\u27s Witness, was convicted of conducting a public meeting in a city park witho...
The recent decision by the federal district court in the case of Committee for Industrial Organizati...
It is the purpose of this comment to explore only one small part of the problem: the flight for free...
Defendant appeared before the New Hampshire attorney general, who was authorized by statute to inves...
The ordinance here involved prohibited any person from addressing a political or religious meeting i...
In March 1951, defendant, a New York City policeman, was called to testify before a state grand jury...
Local police officers entered the private office of petitioner, a practising physician, without a wa...
The editor and publisher of the Miami Herald published two editorials and a cartoon which inaccurate...
Defendant addressed a crowd of people, white and Negro, on a public sidewalk for the purpose of urgi...
Petitioner desired to display for profit a privately owned submarine. Upon application, he was denie...
People v. Bunis, 9 N.Y.2d 1, 210 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1961); People v. Merolla, 9 N.Y.2d 62, 211 N.Y.S.2d 1...
Appellant applied for renewal of his radio operator\u27s license but refused to complete an FCC form...
Defendant-appellant was charged with violation of a Los Angeles municipal ordinance which required a...
Opposing counsel\u27s objection to material in petitioner\u27s opening statement to the jury was sus...
The constitutionality of restraints on attorneys\u27 speech has been considered by only two federal ...