In re Primus: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
new article |
add box |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{SCOTUSCase |Litigants= |
{{SCOTUSCase |Litigants=In re Primus |
||
| ArgueDate= |
| ArgueDate=January 16 |
||
| ArgueYear= |
| ArgueYear=1978 |
||
| DecideDate= |
| DecideDate=May 30 |
||
| DecideYear= |
| DecideYear= 1978 |
||
| FullName=In re Primus - |
|||
| FullName=William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States |
|||
| USVol= |
| USVol= 436 |
||
| USPage= |
| USPage=412 |
||
| Citation= |
| Citation= 436 U.S. 412 (1978) |
||
| Holding= Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. |
|||
| Prior=Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801 |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| Subsequent=None |
|||
| JoinMajority=Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, White, Stevens |
|||
| Holding=Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits. |
|||
|Dissent=Rehnquist |
|||
| SCOTUS=1801–1804 |
|||
|JoinDissent= |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| JoinMajority=Paterson, Chase, Washington |
|||
| NotParticipating= |
| NotParticipating=Brennen |
||
| LawsApplied=14th amendment, 1st amendment |
|||
| LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. arts. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] § 13 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 16:32, 21 January 2012
| In re Primus | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 16, 1978 Decided May 30, 1978 | |
| Full case name | In re Primus - |
| Citations | 436 U.S. 412 (more) 436 U.S. 412 (1978) |
| Holding | |
| Solicitation of prospective litigants by nonprofit organizations that engage in litigation as a form of political expression and political association constitutes expressive and associational conduct entitled to First Amendment protection. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, White, Stevens |
| Dissent | Rehnquist |
| Brennen took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| 14th amendment, 1st amendment | |
Notes and references
External links
Wikisource has original text related to this article: