FERRANTE
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
FERRANTE
CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
385 U.S. 9
Supreme Court of the United States (1966)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1971)…her criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property of any person.” That decision has been followed: Beckman v. Mall, 317 U. S. 597; Bender v. Wickard, 319 U. S. 731; United States v. Haley, 358 U. S. 644; United States v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 9. See n. 2, supra. See n. 1, supra.…
-
Am. Future Sys., Inc. v. The Pa. State Univ. & Bd. of Trs. of the Pa. State Univ. & John W. Oswald, 618 F.2d 252 (3d Cir. 1980)…debate, and assembly, however. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated: “The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 9, 47, 87 S.Ct. 242, 247, 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966). In Adderly the petitioners had assembled on the grounds of the county jail to protest peacefully the racial segregation at the jail. This kind of activity has generally been protect [*256] ed by the Fir…