green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.5 score
“the constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands”
Treatment trajectory · 1943 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1943
1984
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Admiral Theatre v. City of Chicago
the constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nittany Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. College Township
(2×)
See also Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 394 U.S. 147, 151 , 89 S.Ct. 935 , 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969) (“The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.” (quoting Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 , 62 S.Ct. 1231 , 86 L.Ed. 1691 (1942) (Stone, C.J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S.Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed. 1290 )).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Titan Sports, Inc. v. State Athletic Control Board
(2×)
See also Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S. Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hill v. State
See also, Jones v. Opelika , 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S.Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed.2d 1290 (1941) vac'ng previous judgment in 316 U.S. 584 , 62 S.Ct. 1231 , 86 L.Ed. 1691 (1941).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Key v. Doyle
(2×)
See, e. g., Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S.Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) (invalidating license fee statutes as applied to vendors of religious books and tracts); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 60 S.Ct. 900 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) (striking down prohibition against unlicensed door-to-door solicitation of religious contributions), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 83 S.Ct. 1790 , 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) (general economic regulation not enforceable if it imposes even an indirect burden on certain relig…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Estate of French
(2×)
See, e. g., Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S.Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 , 63 S.Ct. 870 , 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) (invalidating license fee statutes as applied to vendors of religious books and tracts); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 60 S.Ct. 900 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) (striking down prohibition against unlicensed door-to-door solicitation of religious contributions), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 83 S.Ct. 1790 , 10 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Linmark Associates, Inc., and William Mellman v. The Township of Willingboro and Gerald Daly
(4×)
See also Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584 , 62 S.Ct. 1231 , 86 L.Ed. 1691 (1942), rev’d per curiam on rehearing, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S.Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jones
v.
Opelika
v.
Opelika
280, October Term, 1941.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 3, 1943.
Mr. Hayden C. Covington for petitioners., No appearance for respondents in Nos. 280 and 314, and appellee in No. 966., Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel, on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, in support of the petition for rehearing; and by Mr. Elisha Hanson, on behalf of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, and Messrs. Homer Cummings and Millward C. Taft, on behalf of the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, in support of the petition for rehearing and urging reversal.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 126 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Illinois (1)
Pee Curiam
(announced by Me. Justice Douglas) :
The judgments in these cases were affirmed at the October Term, 1941. 316 U. S. 584. Because the issues in all three cases were of the same character as those brought before us in other cases by applications for certiorari at the present term, we ordered a reargument and heard these cases together with Murdock v. Pennsylvania, post, p. 105. For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court in the Murdock case, and in the dissenting opinions filed in the present cases after the argument last term, the Court is of opinion that the judgment in each case should be reversed. The judgments of this Court heretofore entered in these cases are therefore vacated, and the judgments of the state courts are reversed.
So ordered.
For dissenting opinions, see post, pp. 117-140.