| dbo:abstract
|
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally valid because it was narrowly tailored to meet a "substantial and justifiable" interest in the state; left open "ample alternative channels of communication"; and was content-neutral. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 12371 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-04-20 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
| |
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-27 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
|
- Stevens (en)
- Brennan (en)
|
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Russell Frisby et al. V. Sandra Schultz et al. (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- The Supreme Court upheld the state ordinance because it is "content neutral," "leaves open ample alternative channels of communication," and serves a "significant government interest." (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
| |
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Rehnquist, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ordinance by the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, preventing protest outside of a residential home. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and speech was not facially violated. The majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concluded that the ordinance was constitutionally valid because it was narrowly tailored to meet a "substantial and justifiable" interest in the state; left open "ample alternative channels of communication"; and was content-neutral. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Russell Frisby et al. V. Sandra Schultz et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
