archive-edu.com » EDU » C » CORNELL.EDU

Total: 1513

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Gitlow v. People
    peace is not open to question P 667 4 For yet more imperative reasons a State may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means P 667 5 A statute punishing utterances advocating the overthrow of organized government by force violence and unlawful means imports a legislative determination that such utterances are so inimical to the general welfare and involve such danger of substantive evil that they may be penalized under the police power and this determination must be given great weight and every presumption be indulged in favor of the validity of the statute P 668 6 Such utterances present sufficient danger to the public peace and security of the State to bring their punishment clearly within the range of legislative discretion even if the effect of a given utterance cannot accurately be foreseen P 669 7 A State cannot reasonably be required to defer taking measures against these revolutionary utterances until they lead to actual disturbances of the peace or imminent danger of the State s destruction P 669 8 The New York statute punishing those who advocate advise or teach the duty necessity or propriety of overthrowing or overturning organized government by force violence or any unlawful means or who print publish or knowingly circulate any book p653 paper etc advocating advising or teaching the doctrine that organized government should be so overthrown does not penalize the utterance or publication of abstract doctrine or academic discussion having no quality of incitement to any concrete action but denounces the advocacy of action for accomplishing the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means and is constitutional as applied to a printed Manifesto advocating and urging mass action which shall progressively foment industrial disturbances and through political mass strikes and revolutionary mass action

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0268_0652_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
    THE UNITED STATES 370 U S 530 Glidden Co v Zdanok CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No 242 Argued February 21 26 1962 Decided June 25 1962 The Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals are courts created under Article III of the Constitution and their judges including retired judges may validly serve by designation and assignment by the

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0530_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court
    controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review since it can reasonably be assumed that appellant will someday be subjected to another order relying on the Massachusetts statute and since criminal trials are typically of short duration Pp 602 603 2 The Massachusetts statute as construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment Pp 603 607 a To the extent that the First Amendment embraces a right of access to criminal trials it is to ensure that the constitutionally protected discussion of governmental affairs is an informed one The right of access to criminal trials in particular is properly afforded protection by the First Amendment both because such trials have historically been open to the press and public and because such right of access plays a particularly significant role in the functioning of the judicial process and the government as a whole Pp 603 606 b The right of access to criminal trials is not absolute but the circumstances under which the press and public can be barred are limited The State must show that denial of such right is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest Pp 606 607 p597 3 The Massachusetts statute cannot be justified on the basis of either the State s interest in protecting minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment or its interest in encouraging such victims to come forward and testify in a truthful and credible manner Pp 607 610 a Compelling as the first interest is it does not justify a mandatory closure rule Such interest could be just as well served by requiring the trial court to determine on a case by case basis whether the State s legitimate

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0596_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Goldberg v. Kelly
    termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command and rejected the argument of the welfare officials that the combination of the existing post termination fair hearing and informal pre termination review was sufficient Held 1 Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and procedural due process is applicable to their termination Pp 261 263 2 The interest of the eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance which provides him with essential food clothing housing and medical care coupled with the State s interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated clearly outweighs the State s competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens Pp 264 266 3 A pre termination evidentiary hearing is necessary to provide the welfare recipient with procedural due process Pp 264 266 271 a Such hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi judicial trial but the recipient must be provided with timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for termination and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally before the decisionmaker Pp 266 270 p255 b Counsel need

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0254_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Goldman v. Weinberger
    duty and in uniform as a commissioned officer in the Air Force at March Air Force Base pursuant to an Air Force regulation that provides that authorized headgear may be worn out of doors but that indoors h eadgear may not be worn except by armed security police in the performance of their duties Petitioner then brought an action in Federal District Court claiming that the application of the regulation to prevent him from wearing his yarmulke infringed upon his First Amendment freedom to exercise his religious beliefs The District Court permanently enjoined the Air Force from enforcing the regulation against petitioner The Court of Appeals reversed Held The First Amendment does not prohibit the challenged regulation from being applied to petitioner even though its effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs That Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices as wearing a yarmulke in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations Here the Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not and the challenged regulation reasonably and evenhandedly regulates dress

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Gomez v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
    OF THE UNITED STATES 503 U S 653 Gomez v United States District Court for the Northern District of California ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY No A 767 Argued Decided April 21 1992 The Court of Appeals granted Robert Alton Harris a stay of execution pending a review of his 42 U S C 1983 claim that his execution by lethal gas would be cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment Held The application to vacate the stay of execution is granted Harris action is an obvious attempt to avoid the application of McCleskey v Zant 499 U S 467 to bar this successive claim for relief He has made no convincing showing of cause for his failure to raise this claim in his four prior federal habeas petitions Even assuming that he could avoid the application of McCleskey his claim should not be considered on the merits Since he is seeking an equitable remedy the State s strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and Harris obvious attempt at manipulation must be taken into consideration This claim could have been raised more than a decade ago and there is no reason for this abusive delay which has

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0503_0653_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Goss v. Lopez
    Amendment because they were suspended without hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter and that the statute and implementing regulations were unconstitutional and granted the requested injunction Held 1 Students facing temporary suspension from a public school have property and liberty interests that qualify for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Pp 572 576 a Having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees class generally Ohio may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred and must recognize a student s legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause and that may not be taken away for misconduct without observing minimum procedures required by that Clause Pp 573 574 b Since misconduct charges if sustained and recorded could seriously damage the students reputation as well as interfere with later educational and employment opportunities the State s claimed right to determine unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the Due Process Clause s prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of liberty Pp 574 575 c A 10 day suspension from school is not de minimis and may not be imposed in complete disregard of the Due Process p566 Clause Neither the property interest in educational benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in reputation is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the school chooses no matter how arbitrary Pp 575 576 2 Due process requires in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and if he denies them an explanation of the evidence the

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0419_0565_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare
    to resident aliens or to aliens who have not resided in the United States for a specified number of years are violative of the Equal Protection Clause and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens and there is no authorization for Arizona s 15 year durational residency requirement in 1402 b of the Social Security Act Pp 370 383 313 F Supp 34 and

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0365_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •