CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 408 U.S. 913 (1972)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 408 U.S. 913 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS , 408 U.S. 913 (1972)

408 U.S. 913

Mallie LEWIS
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
No. 70-5323.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 26, 1972

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for reconsideration in light of Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972).

Mr. Justice POWELL, concurring in the result.

Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the issue in a case of this kind is whether 'fighting words' were used. Here a police officer, while in the performance of his duty, was called 'G02q d--- M--- F---' police.

If these words had been addressed by one citizen to another, face to face and in a hostile manner, I would have no doubt that they would be 'fighting words.' But the situation may be different where such words are addressed to a police officer trained to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen. See Model Penal Code 250.1, Comment 4 (Tent.Draft No. 13, 1961).

Page 408 U.S. 913 , 914

I see no genuine overbreadth problem in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 405 U.S. 903.

I would remand for reconsideration only in light of Chaplinsky.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see .

Dissent by Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN join, dissents; for dissenting opinion see .





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED