How this document has been cited

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.
I suppose there is no doubt, and if there is this Court can dispel it, that a citizen or a class of citizens unlawfully excluded from jury service could maintain in a federal court an individual or a class action for an injunction or mandamus against the state officers responsible.
- in Cassell v. Texas, 1950 and 35 similar citations
The Hague plurality recognized that while a citizen's right of access to the streets and parks is not absolute, it must not be abridged or denied in the guise of regulation.
- in City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc., 2004 and 32 similar citations
—right ultimately rests on the principle that "one who is rightfully on a street which the state has left open to the public carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion."
- in United States v. Grace, 1983 and 35 similar citations
This Court, however, has already given that decision a narrow reading, stating that the case "held as a matter of pleading that the particular cause of action set up in the plaintiff's pleading was in contract and was not to redress deprivation of the `right secured to him by that clause of the Constitution'[the contract clause], to which he had `chosen not to resort. "'
- in Dennis v. Higgins, 1991 and 42 similar citations
—the Supreme Court found invalid a Jersey City ordinance which read in part as follows: "The Director of Public Safety is hereby authorized to refuse to issue said permit when, after investigation of all of the facts and circumstances pertinent to said application, he believes it to be proper to refuse the issuance thereof; provided, however, that said permit shall only be …
- in Chavez v. Municipal Court, 1967 and 35 similar citations
The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be …
- in Borough of Dumont v. Caruth, 1973 and 246 similar citations
The first category, the traditional public forum, consists of streets, sidewalks, and parks that, in Justice Roberts' frequently quoted words, "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public... for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions."
- in Kaplan v. County of Los Angeles, 1990 and 148 similar citations

Cited by

96 P. 3d 979 - Wash: Supreme Court 2004
340 US 268 - Supreme Court 1951
130 F. 2d 652 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1942
561 US 593 - Supreme Court 2010
896 P. 2d 306 - Colo: Supreme Court 1995
723 F. 2d 1050 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1983
554 F. 2d 93 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1977
423 US 362 - Supreme Court 1976
477 F. 2d 411 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1973
472 F. 2d 1273 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1972