Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
1968 United States Supreme Court case
Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne Full case name Joseph Carroll, et al. v. President and Commissioners of Princess Anne Citations 393 U.S. 175 (more Generally, a state cannot preemptively prohibit persons from holding a public meeting without first notifying them and giving them an opportunity to challenge the decision.
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Majority Fortas, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan, Harlan, Stewart, White, Marshall Concurrence Black U.S. Const. amend. I,
XIV
Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot preemptively prohibit persons from holding a public meeting, without first notifying the persons involved, and providing the persons an opportunity to argue the decision, unless moving party can show (per the equivalent of today's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65) (1) that they made efforts to give to notice, and (2) explain to the court the reasons why such notice should not be required. The National States Rights Party won the case unanimously.
Background A
on August 6, 1966. They intended to hold another public meeting the following day, but local citizens persuaded a Circuit Court judge to issue a 10-day restraining order, prohibiting the group from holding any rally "which will tend to disturb and endanger the citizens of the County". The Party was not given any advance notice of the restraining order, nor given an opportunity to argue against it. The Circuit Court then issued a 10-month restraining order. The Maryland court of appeals overturned the 10 month order, but upheld the 10 day order. The Party appealed to the Supreme Court.
Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process required the state to provide the group with notice and a hearing before a restraining order could be issued.[1]
The 10 day restraining order was set aside.
Notes and references
. Retrieved May 28, 2018 .
External links
Public displays Statutory religious Public funding Religion in Private religious speech Internal church affairs Taxpayer standing Blue laws Other
Unprotected
Incitementsedition Libel
andFighting words andheckler's veto True threats Obscenity
Rosen v. United States United States v. One Book Called Ulysses Roth v. United States One, Inc. v. Olesen Smith v. California Marcus v. Search Warrant MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day
(1962)Jacobellis v. Ohio Quantity of Books v. Kansas Ginzburg v. United States Memoirs v. Massachusetts Redrup v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Stanley v. Georgia United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs Kois v. Wisconsin Miller v. California Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film Jenkins v. Georgia Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut People v. Freeman United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. Reno v. ACLU United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. Ashcroft v. ACLU I United States v. American Library Ass'n Ashcroft v. ACLU II Nitke v. Gonzales United States v. Williams American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland United States v. Kilbride United States v. Stevens Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Speech integral
Strict scrutiny Vagueness Symbolic speech Content-based Content-neutral In thepublic forum
Designated Nonpublic
Compelled speech Compelled subsidy
Government grants Government Loyalty oaths School speech Public employees Hatch Act
andLicensing and Commercial speech
Valentine v. Chrestensen Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations Lehman v. Shaker Heights Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Bigelow v. Virginia Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro Carey v. Population Services International Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In re Primus Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association Friedman v. Rogers Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego In re R.M.J. Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind State University of New York v. Fox Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network Edenfield v. Fane United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. United States v. United Foods Inc. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly Thompson v. Western States Medical Center Nike, Inc. v. Kasky
(2003)Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Matal v. Tam Iancu v. Brunetti Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Vidal v. Elster Campaign finance Anonymous speech State action Official retaliation Boycotts Prisons
Organizations Future Conduct Solicitation Membership restriction Primaries and elections
Works related to Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne at Wikisource