GENT ET AL.
v.
ARKANSAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court noted probable jurisdiction limited to specific questions regarding the validity of Act 261 of the Arkansas Acts of 1961.
Appellants challenged Act 261 of the Arkansas Acts of 1961, raising questions about its validity under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse First Amendment (Freedom Of Expression) cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ark. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the jurisdictional statement which read as follows:
“1. Is Act 261 of The Arkansas Acts of 1961 invalid in that on its face and as applied it impairs the freedom of expression protected by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that it operates as a forbidden prior restraint on expression?
“2. Is Act 261 of The Arkansas Acts of 1961 invalid in that on its face and as applied it impairs the freedom of expression protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that it is vague and uncertain?”
As to the other questions presented, which are non-appealable, treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, at 512-514.
Emanuel Redfield for appellants.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Stewart would note probable jurisdiction without limitation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1967)…n of the statute,3 initially took its appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On the Government’s motion, the case was certified here as properly a direct appeal to this Court under 18 U. S. C. § 3731. We noted probable jurisdiction. 384 U. S. 937.4 We affirm the judgment of the District Court, but on the ground that § 5 (a) (1)(D) is an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of association protected by the First Amendment.5 [*262] We cannot agree with the District Court that § 6 (a) (1)(D)…
-
Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1967)…review of the petitioner’s conviction, the Chief Justice dissenting. 386 S. W. 2d 270. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2713 to 41-2728. 239 Ark. 474, 393 S. W. 2d 219. Redrup v. New York, 384 U. S. 916; Austin v. Kentucky, 384 U. S. 916; Gent v. Arkansas, 384 U. S. 937. In each cf the cases before us, the contention that the publications involved were basically protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments was timely but unsuccessfully asserted in the state proceedings. In each of these cases, this contention…
-
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1979)…dge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475, and n. 6. Moreover, the disclaimer issue was implicit in the subjects the parties were requested to address in our order noting probable jurisdiction of this appeal. 435 U. S. 903. Cf. Cent v. [*477] Arkansas, 384 U. S. 937; Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Comm’n, 401 U. S. 933. Washington also contends that this Court’s summary dismissals in Makah Indian Tribe v. State, 76 Wash. 2d 485, 457 P. 2d 590, appeal dismissed, 397 U. S. 316; Tonasket v. State, 84 Wash. 2d 164,…
Authorities Cited
- Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1966)