Plummer v. City of Columbus

Supreme Court

Plummer v. City of Columbus

414 U.S. 2, 94 S. Ct. 17, 38 L. Ed. 2d 3, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 164, 68 Ohio Op. 2d 78

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 15, 1973

Docket72-6897

StatusPublished

Cited by53 cases

This text of 414 U.S. 2 (Plummer v. City of Columbus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plummer v. City of Columbus, 414 U.S. 2, 94 S. Ct. 17, 38 L. Ed. 2d 3, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 164, 68 Ohio Op. 2d 78 (1973).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, in an unreported opinion, affirmed appellant’s conviction of violating Columbus City Code § 2327.03, which provides: “No person shall abuse another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language.” The Ohio Supreme Court, in an unreported order, sua sponte dismissed appellant’s appeal to that court “for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.” We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.

On December 11, 1972, we held that Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972), required the reversal of a previous action of the Ohio Supreme Court that dismissed an appeal from a conviction under § 2327.03. Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U. S. 1053. Section 2327.03 punishes only spoken words and, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because not lim[3]*3ited in application “to punish only unprotected speech” but is “susceptible of application to protected expression.” Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 522. In that circumstance, the Ohio Supreme Court erred when it found no constitutional infirmity in the holding of the Court of Appeals of Franklin County that the ordinance might constitutionally reach appellant’s conduct because “the words as used by the [appellant] are in the nature of ‘fighting words’ and thereby fall within that limit of conduct proscribed by the ordinance . . . For “ ‘[although [the ordinance] may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional over-breadth as applied to others. And if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the [ordinance]. The [ordinance], in effect, is stricken down on its face. . . .’” Id., at 521.

Reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, in an unreported opinion, affirmed appellant’s conviction of violating Columbus City Code § 2327.03, which provides: “No person shall abuse another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language.” The Ohio Supreme Court, in an unreported order, sua sponte dismissed appellant’s appeal to that court “for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.” We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.

On December 11, 1972, we held that Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972), required the reversal of a previous action of the Ohio Supreme Court that dismissed an appeal from a conviction under § 2327.03. Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U. S. 1053. Section 2327.03 punishes only spoken words and, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because not lim[3]*3ited in application “to punish only unprotected speech” but is “susceptible of application to protected expression.” Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 522. In that circumstance, the Ohio Supreme Court erred when it found no constitutional infirmity in the holding of the Court of Appeals of Franklin County that the ordinance might constitutionally reach appellant’s conduct because “the words as used by the [appellant] are in the nature of ‘fighting words’ and thereby fall within that limit of conduct proscribed by the ordinance . . . For “ ‘[although [the ordinance] may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional over-breadth as applied to others. And if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the [ordinance]. The [ordinance], in effect, is stricken down on its face. . . .’” Id., at 521.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 U.S. 2, 94 S. Ct. 17, 38 L. Ed. 2d 3, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 164, 68 Ohio Op. 2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-city-of-columbus-scotus-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack