KNIGHT ET AL.

v.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Law Students Civil Rights Research Council, Inc. v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1971)
  …e no doubt of its validity. It merely requires an applicant to swear or affirm that he will “support the constitution of the United States” as well as that of the State of New York. See Knight v. Board of Regents, 269 F. Supp. 339, aff’d per curiam, 390 U. S. 36; Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876, aff’d per curiam, 390 U. S. [*162] 744; Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152, aff’d per curiam, 397 U. S. 317.15 If all we had before us were the language of Rule 9406, which seems to require an applicant to fu…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1971)
  …e of Florida public employees than is required of all state and federal officers. U. S. Const., Art, VI, cl. 3. The validity of this section of the oath would appear settled. See Knight v. Board of Regents, 269 F. Supp. 339 (1967), aff’d per curiam, 390 U. S. 36 (1968); Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876 (1967), aff’d per curiam, 390 U. S. 744 (1968); Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (1969), aff’d per curiam, 397 U. S. 317 (1970). The second portion of the oath, approved by the District Court, falls w…
• Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (U.S. 1972)
  …t are less suspect and less evil than negative oaths requiring a disaffirmance of political ties, group affiliations, or beliefs. Compare Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U. S. 207 (1971); Knight v. Board of Regents, 269 F. Supp. 339 (SDNY 1967), aff’d, 390 U. S. 36 (1968); Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876 (Colo. 1967), aff’d, 390 U. S. 744 (1968); Ohlson v. Phillips, 304 F. Supp. 1152 (Colo. 1969), aff’d, 397 U. S. 317 (1970), with Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U. S. 54 (1967); Baggett v. Bullitt, supra; Cramp v.…

  ← 1 / 3 →