GOTTESMAN ET AL.

v.

GENERAL MOTORS CORP. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Sherrie Bursey and Brenda Joyce Presley v. United States, 466 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1972)
  …establish that the particular expressions or relationships are outside its reach. (E. g., Gooding v. Wilson (1972) 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408; Cohen v. California (1971) 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 c…
• Silkwood v. The Kerr-McGEE Corp., 563 F.2d 433 (10th Cir. 1977)
  …tant. The Court said that the First Amendment occupies a preferred position in the Bill of Rights. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972); and Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284, reh. den., 404 U.S. 876, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed.2d 124 (1971). It was then careful to point out that any infringement of the First Amendment must be held to a minimum — that it is to be no more extensive than the necessities of the case. In re Stolar, 401 U.S. 23, 91 S.Ct. 7…
• United States v. Salamone, 800 F.2d 1216 (3d Cir. 1986)
  …for insufficient cause, if an unobjectionable jury is after-wards obtained.”); State v. Mathis, 52 N.J. 238, 245 A. 2d 20, 27 (N.J.1968), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Mathis v. New Jersey, 403 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 2277, 29 L.Ed.2d 855, reh. denied, 404 U.S. 876, 92 S.Ct. 31, 30 L.Ed.2d 125 (1971). It is, of course, not surprising that Salamone has not shown that his jury acted differently than would one chosen without the arbitrary exclusions. As the court observes, such a showing is virtually impossible…