Gent v. Arkansas

Supreme Court

Gent v. Arkansas

384 U.S. 937, 86 S. Ct. 1454

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 16, 1966·No. No. 874·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ark. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the jurisdictional statement which read as follows:

“1. Is Act 261 of The Arkansas Acts of 1961 invalid in that on its face and as applied it impairs the freedom of expression protected by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that it operates as a forbidden prior restraint on expression?

“2. Is Act 261 of The Arkansas Acts of 1961 invalid in that on its face and as applied it impairs the freedom of expression protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that it is vague and uncertain?”

As to the other questions presented, which are non-appealable, treating the papers as a petition for a writ of [938]*938certiorari, certiorari is denied. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, at 512-514.

Emanuel Redfield for appellants. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Stewart would note probable jurisdiction without limitation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Ark. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the jurisdictional statement which read as follows:

“1. Is Act 261 of The Arkansas Acts of 1961 invalid in that on its face and as applied it impairs the freedom of expression protected by the First, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that it operates as a forbidden prior restraint on expression?

“2. Is Act 261 of The Arkansas Acts of 1961 invalid in that on its face and as applied it impairs the freedom of expression protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that it is vague and uncertain?”

As to the other questions presented, which are non-appealable, treating the papers as a petition for a writ of [938]*938certiorari, certiorari is denied. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, at 512-514.

Emanuel Redfield for appellants. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Stewart would note probable jurisdiction without limitation.

Gent v. Arkansas, 384 U.S. 937, 86 S. Ct. 1454 (1966).

Pincite

384 U.S. 937 (Gent v. Arkansas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related