Jones v. Opelika

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 319 U.S. 103, 87 L. Ed. 1290, 63 S. Ct. 890, SCDB 1942-153, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 710

Decision Date: 5/3/1943

Docket Number: No. 280

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.S. 103, 87 L. Ed. 1290, 63 S. Ct. 890, SCDB 1942-153, 1943 U.S. LEXIS 710 (1943)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1943

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 79 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

U.S.14

Cal.4

Cal. Ct. App.4

N.Y. Sup. Ct.3

10th Cir.2

5th Cir.2

Most recently cited by10

2023People v. Mosqueda Cal. Ct. App.
2018Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Cincinnati Ohio Ct. Com. Pl.
2018State v. Seidel Or. App. Ct.
2014Nittany Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. College Township M.D. Pa.
2013Gilardi v. United States Depertment of Health & Human Services D.C. Cir.
2006United Youth Careers, Inc. v. City of Ames S.D. Iowa
1997Gospel Missions of America v. Bennett C.D. Cal.
1993Admiral Theatre v. City of Chicago N.D. Ill.
1993Kaplan v. Prolife Action League of Greensboro N.C. Ct. App.
1990Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California U.S.

Cites 1 case

Jones v. Opelika

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

JONES v. OPELIKA.

Attorneys

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.

majority 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.