Lee v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2019Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc. 11th Cir.
- 2018Mahgerefteh v. City of Torrance C.D. Cal.
- 2014International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles 9th Cir.
- 2014Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Desloge 8th Cir.
- 2013Johnson v. Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 8th Cir.
- 2010News & Observer Publishing Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority 4th Cir.
- 2008Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Fed. Cir.
- 2008Norfolk v. Cobo Hall Conference & Exhibition Center E.D. Mich.
- 2007Preminger v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Fed. Cir.
- 2005Initiative & Referendum Institute v. United States Postal Service D.C. Cir.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
LEE, SUPERINTENDENT OF PORT AUTHORITY POLICE v. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., et al.
Judges
- with whom Justice White, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join,
Attorneys
- Arthur P. Berg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Philip Maurer, Arnold D. Kolikoff, and Milton H. Paehter.
- Barry A. Fisher argued the cause for respondents. With him on the Briefs were David Grosz, Robert C. Moest, David M. Liberman, Jay Alan Sekulow, and Jeremiah S. Gutman.
For the reasons expressed in the opinions of Justice O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter, see ante, p. 685 (O’Connor, J., concurring in No. 91-155 and concurring in judgment in No. 91-339), ante, p. 693 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgments), and ante, p. 709 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment in No. 91-339 and dissenting in No. 91-155), the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the ban on distribution of literature in the Port Authority airport terminals is invalid under the First Amendment is
Affirmed.