Roscoe Jones v. City of Opelika. Lois Bowden & Zada Sanders v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Charles Jobin v. The State of Arizona, 319 U.S. 103 (1943). · Go Syfert
Search
Roscoe Jones v. City of Opelika. Lois Bowden & Zada Sanders v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Charles Jobin v. The State of Arizona, 319 U.S. 103 (1943). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · “The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of [a licensing law] the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands”
175 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 51 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Admiral Theatre v. City of Chicago (ilnd, 1993-08-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1943 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1943 1984 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Admiral Theatre v. City of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · 1993 · signal: accord · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
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 as authority (rule) City of Corona v. Corona Daily Independent
Cal. Ct. App. · 1953 · confidence medium
Co. v. Police Court of the City of Sacramento, 28 Cal.App. 412, 421 [ 152 P. 928 ]; 6 McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, 3d ed. p. 18, § 20.08; 18 Cal.Jur., p. 931, § 217; 16 C.J.S., p. 234, § 98.) Upon the contention that the ordinance is invalid on its face and unconstitutional because it is an attack upon the exercise of freedoms and privileges secured by the Constitution, defendant relies principally upon Follett v. Town of McCormick (S. C.), 321 U.S. 573 [ 64 S.Ct. 717 , 88 L.Ed. 938 , 152 A.L.R. 317 ] ; Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, supra; Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S.…
discussed Cited "see" Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
SCOTUS · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See 29 CFR § 1604.4 . [8] See also Jones v. Opelika, 319 U. S. 103 (1943); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943). [9] In response to questioning at oral argument, counsel for Pittsburgh Press stated only: "Now, I'm not prepared to answer whether the company makes money on [want ads] or not.
cited Cited "see" Jobin v. Arizona
SCOTUS · 1944 · signal: see · confidence high
See 319 U. S. 103 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nittany Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. College Township
M.D. Penn. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
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 )).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Titan Sports, Inc. v. State Athletic Control Board
N.J. Tax Ct. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 , 63 S. Ct. 890 , 87 L.Ed. 1290 (1943).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California
SCOTUS · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Accordingly, we held that “spreading one’s religious beliefs or preaching the Gospel through distribution of religious lit *386 erature and through personal visitations is an age-old type of evangelism with as high a claim to constitutional protection as the more orthodox types.” Id., at 110 ; see also Jones v. Opelika, 319 U. S. 103 (1943); Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hill v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
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
D.C. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
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
D.C. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
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.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Linmark Associates, Inc., and William Mellman v. The Township of Willingboro and Gerald Daly (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
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).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kunz v. New York (2×)
SCOTUS · 1951 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Jones v. Opelika of 1942, 316 U. S. 584 , with Jones v. Opelika of 1943, 319 U. S. 103 ; Minersville School District v. Gobitis of 1940, 310 U. S. 586 , with Board of Education v. Barnette of 1943, 319 U. S. 624 ; Saia v. New York of 1948, supra, with Kovacs v. Cooper of 1949, supra. It seems hypercritical to strike down local laws on their faces for want of standards when we have no standards. 8 And I do not find it required by existing authority.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roscoe Jones
v.
City of Opelika. Lois Bowden and Zada Sanders v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Charles Jobin v. The State of Arizona
Nos. 280, 314, 966.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 3, 1943.
319 U.S. 103
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: N.D. Illinois (1)

319 U.S. 103

63 S.Ct. 890

87 L.Ed. 1290

Roscoe JONES, Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF OPELIKA. Lois BOWDEN and Zada Sanders, Petitioners, v. CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS. Charles JOBIN, Appellant, v. The STATE OF ARIZONA.

Nos. 280, 314, 966.

Reargued March 10, 11, 1943.

Decided May 3, 1943.

Robert MURDOCK, Jr., Petitioner,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE), and

seven other cases.

Nos. 280, 314, 966, 480—487.

Supreme Court of the United States

Reargued March 10, 11, 1943.

May 3, 1943

Mr. Justice REED, dissenting.

Mr. Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioners.

No appearance for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

[*~103]1

The judgments in these cases were affirmed at the October Term, 1941. 316 U.S. 584, 62 S.Ct. 1231, 86 L.Ed. 1691, 141 A.L.R. 514. 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 Nos. 480-487, Murdock et al. v. Pennsylvania. For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court in Nos. 480-487, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. —-, decided this day, 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.

2

Reversed.

[*~104]3

For dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice REED, and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, see 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 891.