Events2Join

Near v. Minnesota


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)

Near v. Minnesota: Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, ...

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

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

Near v. Minnesota - Wikipedia

Near v. Minnesota ... 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 ...

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

The Court held that prior restraint on publication (censoring newspapers in advance) in Minnesota was “the essence of censorship” and the heart of what the ...

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

Near v. Minnesota (1931) fashioned the First Amendment doctrine opposing prior restraint and reaffirmed that the incorporation of the First ...

Near v. Minnesota - Teaching American History

Near v. Minnesota is the Supreme Court's first landmark case on freedom of the press. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes identified the censorship of ...

NEAR v. STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. OLSON, Co. Atty.

The county attorney of Hennepin county brought this action to enjoin the publication of what was described as a 'malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper ...

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. Minnesota - Ballotpedia

Near v. Minnesota ... Near v. Minnesota is a case decided on June 1, 1931, by the United States Supreme Court holding that restraints on speech are ...

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

Hughes, Charles Evans, and Supreme Court Of The United States. US Reports: Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 . 1930. Periodical.

NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY

Importance of Case. 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 ...

Near v. Minnesota (1931) - About the USA

We hold the statute, so far as it authorized the proceedings in this action, to be infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth ...

Near v. Minnesota - Digital History

The decision of the Court in this case declares Minnesota and every other State powerless to restrain by injunction the business of publishing and circulating ...

Near v. Minnesota Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal

The meaning of NEAR V. MINNESOTA is 382 U.S. 679 (1931), ruled that a state law prohibiting publication of a newspaper that prints malicious or defamatory ...

Near at 85: A look back at the landmark decision

This year marks the 85th anniversary of Near v. Minnesota, the milestone U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the presumption that prior restraints — ...

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, ...

Near v. Minnesota | Summary, Facts & Analysis - Study.com

Near v. Minnesota (1931) is a landmark Supreme Court case that helped establish the current state of the liberty of the press. The case was passed by a narrow 5 ...

Free April 16 CLE explores landmark First Amendment case Near v ...

Minnesota. In their decision the justices ruled the Minnesota Public Nuisance Law, which had been used to stop publication of a so-called “ ...

Near v. Minnesota | Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs

A Minnesota law that “gagged” a periodical from publishing derogatory statements about local public officials was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of ...