HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255, ET AL.

v.

SAX ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.; AND HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255, ET AL. V. LEVY ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS SHERRY FRONTENAC HOTEL, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Sherrie Bursey and Brenda Joyce Presley v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1972)
  …71) 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284, rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 876, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed.2d 124; Speiser v. Randall (1958) 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460, rehearing denied sub nom. Prince v. City and County of San Francisco, 358 U.S. 860, 79 S.Ct. 13, 3 L.Ed.2d 95.) We reject the Government’s second contention that the First Amendment is nugatory in a grand jury proceeding.15 No governmental door can be closed against the Amendment. No governmental activity is immune from its force…
• Poulson v. Turner, 359 F.2d 588 (10th Cir. 1966)
  …California, 342 U.S. 165, 168, 72 S.Ct. 205, 208, 96 L.Ed. 183. In the enforcement of their criminal laws, states have comprehensive rights in fashioning their own rules. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 78 S.Ct. 1302, 2 L.Ed.2d 1393, reh. denied 358 U.S. 860, 79 S.Ct. 12, 3 L.Ed.2d 95. Two of the contentions for reversal made here relate to the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon lesser offenses included in the charge of first degree murder, and an alleged erroneous instruction as to the def…
• Fiorillo v. U.S. Dep't OF Just., 795 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
  …we fail to see how an officer can exercise his First Amendment rights rationally and intelligently. As police officers “steer far wider of the unlawful zone,” [Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1342, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460, reh’g denied, 358 U.S. 860, 79 S.Ct. 12, 3 L.Ed.2d 95 (1958) ] the public, for whose benefit the Constitution protects many types of speech, is bound to suffer, and this is impermissible. Id. at 1300-01 (footnote omitted). See also Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Delmonte, 553…