green
Positive treatment
7.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. State
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 255 (E.D.Ark.), aff'd, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968); In re Criminal Investigation, 754 P.2d 633, 642 (Utah 1988); State v. *837 Kelley, 353 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Iowa 1984); cf. People v. Wilson, 164 Ill.2d 436 , 207 Ill.Dec. 417, 428 , 647 N.E.2d 910, 921 (1994); State v. Baldwin, 242 Mont. 176 , 789 P.2d 1215, 1219 (1990); State ex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Reed
See State v. Estate of Burnell, 165 Colo. 205, 208-209 , 439 P.2d 38 , appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 13 , 89 S. Ct. 46 , 21 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 257 (E.D.Ark.) (three-judge court), aff’d, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Marshall v. J. P. Stevens Employees Education Committee
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248 (3-Judge court, E.D.Ark.1968), aff’d per curiam, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gerald Hastings v. North East Independent School District
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 257 (ED Ark.) (three-judge court), aff'd., 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968). 30 424 U.S. at 64 , 96 S.Ct. at 656 . 31 Where, as here, constitutionally protected rights are infringed by the disclosure order, the party seeking discovery must demonstrate "an interest in obtaining the disclosures . . . which is sufficient to justify the deterrent effect which . . . these disclosures may well have," N. A. A. C.
cited
Cited "see"
Hastings v. North East Independent School District
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 257 (ED Ark.) (three-judge court), aff’d., 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968). 424 U.S. at 64 , 96 S.Ct. at 656 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Nicholson v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
However, when First Amendment rights are validly asserted on a motion to quash, the burden shifts to the Government (in this case, respondent commission) to demonstrate a compelling interest sufficient to outweigh the possibility of infringement of these rights (Matter of Wood, 430 F Supp 41, 45 ; see Pollard v Roberts, 283 F Supp 248, 257-258 , affd 393 US 14 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Oregon Socialist Workers 1974 Campaign Committee v. Paulus
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248 (3-judge court, E.D.Ark.1968), aff’d per curiam, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227
See Pollard v Roberts, 283 F Supp 248, 257 (ED Ark, 1968) (three-judge court), aff'd, 393 US 14 [ 89 S Ct 47 ; 21 L Ed 2d 14 ] (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Morris v. Gressette
See Allen, 393 U.S. at 562 , 89 S.Ct. 817 ; Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. at 541, n. 13 , 93 S.Ct. 1702 ; United Jewish Org. of Williamsburgh v. Wilson at 520.
discussed
Cited "see"
Buckley v. Valeo
(2×)
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F. Supp. 248, 257 (ED Ark.) (three-judge court), aff'd, 393 U. S. 14 (1968) *65 ( per curiam ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Buckley v. Valeo
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id. § 431(e)(5)(A) 120 In Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248 (E.D.Ark.), aff'd, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968) (mem.), a three-judge district court, which included then Circuit Judge Blackmun, saw no compelling state interest to justify a particularized inquiry by a prosecutor into the identity of contributors to the Republican Party in Arkansas, referred to as a long-time minority party, "a minority party as far as numbers of regular adherents are concerned." Id. at 258.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fortson v. Weeks
(2×)
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 FSupp. 248, 258 (affirmed per curiam, 393 U. S. 14 (89 SC 47, 21 LE2d 14)).
examined
Cited "see"
California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F. Supp. 248 (ED Ark.), aff'd per curiam, 393 U. S. 14 (1968).
cited
Cited "see"
Bruns v. Pomerleau
See Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248 (E.D.Ark.), aff’d 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Local 491, International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Gwinnett County
In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit suggested that a “more lenient” showing applies to targeted investigations because “the government investigation itself may indicate the possibility of harassment.” Id.; see also Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 258 (D.C.Ark.1968), aff'd per curiam 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968) (finding prosecutor’s attempt to subpoena the names of contributors to a political campaign unconstitutional, despite “no evidence of record in this case that any individuals have as yet been subjected to reprisals on account of the contributions in qu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lassa v. Rongstad
See, e.g., International Action Ctr. v. United States, 207 F.R.D. 1 , 3 n. 6 (D.D.C.2002). [20] Much as in NAACP, the Court in Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 , 80 S.Ct. 412 , 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960), spoke of "substantial uncontroverted evidence that public identification of persons in the community as members of the [NAACP] had been followed by harassment and threats of bodily harm." Id. at 524 , 80 S.Ct. 412 . [21] But cf. Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 844 , 143 Cal.Rptr. 695 , 574 P.2d 766, 782 (1978) (in which the majority of the court in a four-to-three decision seemingly ig…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Brock v. Local 375, Plumbers International Union of America, Afl-Cio
See also Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 257 (E.D.Ark.1968), aff'd, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Brock v. Local 375, Plumbers International Union of America
See also Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248, 257 (E.D.Ark.1968), aff'd, 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Buckley v. Valeo
See also Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F.Supp. 248 (E.D.Ark.), aff'd mem. 393 U.S. 14 , 89 S.Ct. 47 , 21 L.Ed.2d 14 (1968). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ROSSO Et Ux.
v.
PUERTO RICO
v.
PUERTO RICO
242.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 14, 1968.
Walter L. Newsom, Jr., and James B. Donovan for appellants., Rafael A. Rivera-Cruz, Solicitor General of Puerto Rico, J. F. Rodriguez-Rivera, Deputy Solicitor General, and Peter Ortiz, Assistant Solicitor General, for appellee.
Eortas.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Eortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.