Supreme Court· 4/20/1970
Bachellar v. Maryland
Citations
- 397 U.S. 564
- 90 S. Ct. 1312
- 25 L. Ed. 2d 570
- 1970 U.S. LEXIS 49
- 52 Ohio Op. 2d 200
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding, upon “independent examination of the whole record,” that wording on petitioners’ placards was not “fighting words”
- overturning conviction under statute that prohibited \acting in a disorderly manner to the disturbance of the public peace\
- voiding criminal conviction due to possibility that, given court’s instructions, conviction resulted from finding that defendant’s views were merely offensive to bystanders
- noting “petitioners’ convictions could constitutionally have rested on a finding that they sat or lay across a public sidewalk with the intent of fully blocking passage along it”
- finding probable cause based exclusively on plaintiff’s online speech was valid because not all of plaintiff’s Facebook activity was clearly First Amendment-protected expression
- condemning post hoc speculation as to which alternative ground informed jury verdict
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brennan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
149 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court· 1979-06-18· cited 3,585×
- Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court· 1985-04-29· cited 2,053×
- Boyde v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1990-04-23· cited 1,983×
- Texas v. JohnsonSupreme Court· 1989-06-21· cited 1,671×
- Gooding v. WilsonSupreme Court· 1972-03-23· cited 1,392×
- Griffin v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1991-12-03· cited 1,353×
- McGautha v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1971-05-03· cited 1,077×
- Gonzalez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2000-01-05· cited 641×
- Shell v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1990-10-29· cited 353×
- Matal v. TamSupreme Court· 2017-06-19· cited 331×
- People v. MartinezNew York Court of Appeals· 1993-12-21· cited 292×
- Hopkinson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1981-07-02· cited 259×
- Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff DepartmentNinth Circuit· 2008-07-02· cited 237×
- Ford v. StricklandEleventh Circuit· 1983-01-07· cited 223×
- Bible Believers v. Wayne CountySixth Circuit· 2015-10-28· cited 214×
- In Re CoxCalifornia Supreme Court· 1970-10-01· cited 173×
- Eaton v. City of TulsaSupreme Court· 1974-03-25· cited 161×
- Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. BentonTexas Supreme Court· 1998-12-31· cited 152×
- Daniel Brewington v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court· 2014-05-01· cited 144×
- Thomas Leonard v. Stephen Robinson, in His Individual CapacitySixth Circuit· 2007-02-02· cited 142×
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 1942-03-09· cited 2,706×
- Cox v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1965-01-18· cited 1,449×
- Stromberg v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1931-05-18· cited 1,418×
- Yates v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1957-06-17· cited 1,277×
- Terminiello v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1949-06-13· cited 1,230×
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1943-01-04· cited 1,003×
- Edwards v. South CarolinaSupreme Court· 1963-02-25· cited 931×
- Street v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1969-04-21· cited 632×
- Shuttlesworth v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court· 1966-01-17· cited 385×
- Drews v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1964-06-22· cited 42×
- Drews v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1961-01-18· cited 36×
- Drews v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1965-06-07· cited 25×
- Drews v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1964-10-22· cited 21×
- Bacheller v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1968-04-15· cited 20×
Other cases named Bachellar v. Maryland
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.