U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1970

Stephen Dash v. The Commanding General, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and the Secretary of the Army

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 2, 1970 · Boreman, Butzner, Per Curiam, Widener

429 F.2d 427; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 7470 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

David Rein, Washington, D. C. (Leonard B. Boudin, Dorian Bowman and David Rosenberg, Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard, New York City, and Thomas Broadwater, Columbia, S. C., on the brief), for appellants., Joseph 0. Rogers, Jr., U. S. Atty. for District of South Carolina, and Wistar D. Stuckey, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Lt. Col. Arnold I. Melnick, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

James Edward Carlson v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense (D.C. Cir. 1975)
Grosvenor Burnett v. Lt. General John J. Tolson, Commanding General of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Stanley R. Resor, as Secretary of the Army (4th Cir. 1973)
Flower v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972)
Stolte v. Laird (District Court, District of Columbia 1972)
Cortright v. Resor (2d Cir. 1971)
Cortright v. Resor (District Court, E.D. New York 1971)
Cortright v. Resor (2d Cir. 1971)
Glines v. Wade (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1975)
United States v. Jon Randolph Floyd (10th Cir. 1973)
American Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. Jennings (District Court, District of Columbia 1973)
O'NEILL v. Dent (District Court, E.D. New York 1973)
Carlson v. Schlesinger (District Court, District of Columbia 1973)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Soldiers stationed at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, appealed from a judgment of the district court that upheld the constitutionality of a regulation prohibiting the distribution of printed material without the post commander’s approval and sustained the commander’s denial of their request for a public meeting on the post. With his usual thoroughness, Judge Russell carefully balanced the competing interests founded on the First Amendment and the constitutional grants of power for the government and regulation of the military. We affirm on his opinion, Dash v. Commanding General, 307 F.Supp. 849 (D.S.C. 1969).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.