Stromberg v. California
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Stromberg_v._California an entity of type: Thing
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Stromberg v. California
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Yetta Stromberg v. People of State of California
xsd:integer
2095142
xsd:integer
1121213803
rdf:langString
Butler
rdf:langString
Holmes, Van Devanter, Brandeis, Sutherland, Stone, Roberts
rdf:langString
Cal. Penal Code § 403a
xsd:integer
51
rdf:langString
People v. Mintz, 106 Cal. App. 725, 290 P. 93
xsd:integer
359
xsd:integer
283
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-15
xsd:integer
1931
rdf:langString
Stromberg v. California,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-18
xsd:integer
1931
rdf:langString
Yetta Stromberg v. People of State of California
rdf:langString
States cannot infringe on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression.
rdf:langString
Stromberg v. California
rdf:langString
Hughes
rdf:langString
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand. This decision is considered a landmark in the history of First Amendment constitutional law, as it was one of the first cases where the Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment to include a protection of the substance of the First Amendment, in this case symbolic speech or "expressive conduct", from state infringement.
rdf:langString
McReynolds
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
14040