POE ET AL.

v.

ULLMAN, STATE'S ATTORNEY; AND BUXTON V. ULLMAN, STATE'S ATTORNEY

Citator

Cited By

• POE v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961)
  …relying on State v. Nelson, 126 Conn. 412, 11 A. 2d 856, and Tileston v. Ullman, 129 Conn. 84, 26 A. 2d 582, app. dism’d, 318 U. S. 44, we cannot say that its decision rested on it. 147 Conn. [*501] 48, 156 A. 2d 508. We noted probable jurisdiction. 362 U. S. 987. Appellants' complaints in these declaratory judgment proceedings do not clearly, and certainly do not in terms, allege that appellee Ullman threatens to prosecute them for use of, or for giving advice concerning, contraceptive devices. The allegat…
• Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (U.S. 1961)
  …or the reasons stated above. A three-judge court was properly convened and it dismissed the complaint on the authority of the Two Guys From Harrison case. 184 F. Supp. 352. On appeal brought under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction, 362 U. S. 987. Appellants contend that the enforcement against them of the Pennsylvania statute will prohibit the free exercise [*602] of their religion because, due to the statute’s compulsion to close on Sunday, appellants will suffer substantial economic loss…
• Procunier v. Atchley, 400 U.S. 446 (U.S. 1971)
  …fornia. . The judgment is reversed. Mr. Justice Black concurs in the judgment and substantially all of the opinion. No charges had been filed against the respondent at the time of these conversations. Cf. Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201. 362 U. S. 987. 366 U. S. 207. 412 F. 2d 230. 397 U. S. 905. Congress in 1966 amended 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (see 1964 ed., Supp. V), so as substantially to codify most of the habeas corpus criteria set out in Townsend v. Sain.…