Events2Join

NEAR v. STATE OF MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON


Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson | Oyez

A case in which the Court found that a Minnesota law allowing public officials to censor printed news periodicals was unconstitutional under the First ...

Near v. Minnesota | 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory content.

Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olson - Quimbee

Facts. A Minnesota State statute provided for the abatement as a public nuisance of a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other ...

NEAR v. STATE OF MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, 283 U.S. 697 ...

A malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical, is guilty of a nuisance, and all persons guilty of such nuisance may be ...

Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olsen | Case Brief for Law Students

Near v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Olsen Case Brief - Rule of Law: The government may not censor expression in advance either legislatively or judicially.

Near v. Minnesota - Wikipedia

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate ...

NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY

The Court held that to allow such a prior restraint on speech would violate the Constitution and run contrary to the whole purpose of the First Amendment.

Near v. Minnesota (1931) | Wex | US Law - Legal Information Institute

Near v. Minnesota (1931) is a landmark Supreme Court case revolving around the First Amendment. In this case, the Supreme Court held that prior restraint on ...

Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931) Overview - YouTube

In 1925, Minnesota passed a law that allowed for the abatement (removal) of any "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine, ...

Periodical US Reports: Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931).

- Minnesota state constitution; - Malicious articles; - Legislative ... Minnesota ex rel. Olson, County Attorney. Call Number/Physical Location. Call ...

Near v. State of Minnesota Olson - Federal Cases - VLEX 890392199

Decision Date, 01 June 1931 ; Docket Number, No. 91,91 ; Citation, 75 L.Ed. 1357,283 U.S. 697,51 S.Ct. 625 ; Parties, NEAR v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. OLSON, Co.

Near v. Minnesota (1931) | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Near v. Minnesota (1931) · Government cannot restrain the press from publishing, Supreme Court says · Split decision includes four justices who ...

Near v. Minnesota - Ballotpedia

State officials sought an injunction against the newspaper for violating the state's public nuisance law by publishing defamatory content. A trial court issued ...

State ex Rel. Olson v. Guilford, 174 Minn. 457 - Casetext

3. The inherent nature of the business of regularly and customarily publishing and circulating a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper bears such a ...

Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson | The Federalist Society

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Charles Hughes, the Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was facially unconstitutional ...

State ex Rel. Olson v. Guilford, 179 Minn. 40 - Casetext

The claim is advanced that the statute is in contravention of art. 1, § 3, of our state constitution relating to the liberty of the press, and also that it ...

In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931), the Supreme Court held ...

In Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931), the Supreme Court held that the state of Minnesota could not restrict the publishing of a local ...

Near v. Minnesota in the Context of Historical Developments - CORE

4. Following the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in State ex rel Olson v. Guilford, 179 Minn. 40, 228 N.W. 326 (1929), rev ...

NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY

Love free speech? Join FIRE's movement to celebrate free expression, and show your support for the First Amendment. Add your name.

Near v. Minnesota (1931) - Bill of Rights Institute

In this landmark freedom of the press case, the Court struck down a state law allowing prior restraint (government censorship in advance) as unconstitutional.